Dickason v. McNeil
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; R. J. Williams, Special Chancellor; 1. Both parties were represented by agents and defendant was drawn into a situation different from that intended by her and was entangled in the web woven by real estate agents. The sale to Mrs. Dickason was never complete. She never received a good title to the property described in the deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; R. J. Williams, Special Chancellor; 1. Both parties were represented by agents and defendant was drawn into a situation different from that intended by her and was entangled in the web woven by real estate agents. The sale to Mrs. Dickason was never complete. She never received a good title to the property described in the deed. The title to the 169 acres was not a marketable title, the description being insufficient. 129 Ark. 334. There was also a failure of the grantors to deliver the land as described in the deed. The proof is clear that the agent…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is contended by counsel for the defendant, Mary E. Dickason, that the decree should be reversed because under the contract of purchase Mrs. Dickason was to have a deed that conveyed a good title to the St. Francis County lands and that this she never got. The deed conveyed from Moore to Mrs. Dickason 403 acres of land in St. Francis County, Arkansas, and counsel for the defendant now claims that because the deed to 169 acres of the land had a defect in the description there was no completed sale of the lands. The preliminary contract of sale between…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ward v. ForrestSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945