Holub v. Titus
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis 'Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The record proves that Joseph Holuib, Sr., the father of .appellant, .at the time he entered upon the property in controversy, did so under contract with Han D. Titus, to purchase the same, and the deed subsequently executed by Titus to him was in pursuance of this contract. 2. The deed from Titus to appellee and his brother was for a mere nominal consideration and constitutes no more than a gift…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis 'Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The record proves that Joseph Holuib, Sr., the father of .appellant, .at the time he entered upon the property in controversy, did so under contract with Han D. Titus, to purchase the same, and the deed subsequently executed by Titus to him was in pursuance of this contract. 2. The deed from Titus to appellee and his brother was for a mere nominal consideration and constitutes no more than a gift from parent to child. It cannot be sustained against a stranger purchasing from the parent for a valuable consideration. 1…
1Opinion of the Court
■Smith, J.
This is a suit in ejectment, both parties thereto 'claiming title through one D. D. Titus. The testimony in the case was devoted chiefly to the answer to this question: “Was D. D. Titus the owner and in possession of the land when he and his wife, Nancy K. Titus, executed the deed to their two sons, John D. Titus and James M. Titus, on May 18, 1895, and filed for record oh May 20,1895? Or had D. D. Titus prior to May 20,1895, placed appellant in possession of the land under a contract of purchase?”
Appellees were the plaintiffs below and claimed title under the deed dated May 18,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hall v. LawSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Power v. KitchingNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Beard v. DansbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Bagley v. FletcherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Skelly Oil Company v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Moorehead v. DialSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Lucado v. A. Hirsch Company, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Nixon v. Norton-Wheeler Stave Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- United States v. 48.9 Acres of Land in Pike CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.