Boyd v. Lloyd
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; Jesse.C. Hart, Chancellor; 1. The evidence is ample to show that Jackson knew the nature of the transaction, and was fully capable of executing the deed and contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; Jesse.C. Hart, Chancellor; 1. The evidence is ample to show that Jackson knew the nature of the transaction, and was fully capable of executing the deed and contract. The fact that he was physically weak and not bright mentally does not show that he was incapable of executing the contract. 66 Ark. 623; 70 Ark. 166. 2., It is shown that the instruments were executed at the instance of Jackson himself, and that no fraud or undue influence was practiced by appellant. The burden was on appellees to prove fraud, etc. 18 Ark. 123; 25 Ark 225; 40 Ark. 417; 37 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
-Fannie Jackson Bloyd and Alice Jackson, claiming to be the heirs of Clem Jackson, brought suit against R. S. Boyd in the Bonoke Chancery Court to set aside a deed executed by Clem Jackson, their father, in his lifetime, to the defendant. They alleged that the deed was without adequate ■consideration, and was procured by fraud. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of the deed, and denying the other allegations in the complaint..The deed was made on the 12th day of April, 1905, and conveyed a certain tract of land, containing eighty acres, to the defendant. The consideration stated…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Walk v. BarrettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Fine v. LasaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Jefferson Square v. Hart ShoesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- Goodwin v. TysonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Cole v. SalyersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.