Tatum v. Bolding
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; J. M. Barker, Chancellor; The testimony does not support the findings of the chancellor. It should be “full, clear and conclusive.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; J. M. Barker, Chancellor; The testimony does not support the findings of the chancellor. It should be “full, clear and conclusive.” Appellees’ possession was merely incidental to their logging contract with Tatum, and was' not sufficient to take this’ case out of the statute of frauds. 31 Ark. 481. Where one purchases land' with his own money, no contemporaneous or subsequent parol declaration of a trust can affect the title. 42 Ark. 503. It is void within the statute of frauds. 42 Ark. 481. An express trust in land cannot rest in parol. 67 Ark. 526. 1. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
C. W. Mumford, of Union County, Arkansas, owned' a quarter section of timber land in that county, and on October 14, 1902, conveyed it for a consideration of $550 to appellant, B. F. Tatum-, who was engaged in buying logs for the Bayou Sara Lumber Company, a Louisiana corporation. ‘Tatum sold and conveyed the land to the Ouachita Lumber Company on July 17, 1906, and in November, 1906, appellees, J. O. Bolding and W. W. Bolding, instituted the present action in the chancery court of Union County against Tatum and the Ouachita Lumber Company, and an agent of the latter, alleging that they…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tillar v. HenrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Mason v. HarkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Phillips v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Bonner v. Kimball-Lacy Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Newman v. KelloggSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937