Prentice v. Cox
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentConley Byrd, Justice
I disagree with the majority’s assertion that it takes clear, cogent and convincing evidence to prove a breach of contract of support when that is the consideration for a deed. While it admittedly takes clear, cogent and convincing evidence to refute the recitation of the consideration and to show that the actual consideration was the support of the grantor, Woolf v. Madison, 250 Ark. 114, 464 S.W. 2d 74 (1971), when that burden has been surmounted, the issue of performance or breach should then be considered in the same context of any other contract whether oral or written. Appellee here…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Salyers v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Priest v. MurphySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Carney v. MatthewsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Edwards v. LockeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Woolf v. MadisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971