Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bright v. Perkins
Citations: 218 Ark. 856; 239 S.W.2d 281; 1951 Ark. LEXIS 434Docket: 4-9483
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 30, 1951; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Charles Bright sought to reform a deed regarding the boundary of Lot 7, which he sold to W. A. Whistle on February 11, 1939, along with Lots 8 and 9. Bright claimed mutual mistake concerning the boundary, asserting that true lines had not been established at the time of the conveyance. He contended that he owned the disputed area, which includes accretion lands along Big Lake, and that he had created a mound of land through excavation efforts. Bright did not record the deed for the land conveyed by Whistle until August 12, 1941. Whistle subsequently sold the properties to A. J. Lewis, who later conveyed them to Perkins, with the complaint alleging that Lewis was aware the mound along the lake was not included in his purchase. Bright initiated an ejectment action due to Lewis's encroachment, resulting in a judgment in 1945 affirming Bright's claims to the disputed land. Despite a writ of possession issued in 1949, the property could not be located definitively, prompting Bright to seek equitable relief. Whistle passed away before the reformation suit was filed, and Lewis raised estoppel among other defenses. A diagram presented by Bright indicated discrepancies between the claimed dimensions of the mound and the descriptions in the deeds, as the projections did not align with the stated measurements. The case revolves around interpretations of the boundaries and ownership rights of the contested land adjacent to Lot 7. Appellant's claim relates to a 200-foot accretion area near Lot 7, positioned 475 feet west of the northeast corner. The deed references a "mound of land" adjacent to Lot 7, which the appellant asserts he previously possessed and utilized. However, he sold Lot 7 to Whistle, who later provided a quitclaim deed that the appellant now seeks to reform due to mutual mistakes, occurring ten years after the sale and following Whistle's death. A key argument by the appellant is that Perkins, the subsequent buyer, was aware of the adverse claim prior to purchasing from Lewis. Evidence indicates that a purchase contract between Lewis and Perkins was executed and earnest money exchanged before Bright informed Perkins of his claim to the mound, with communication regarding this claim being indirect and unverified. Both Lewis and Perkins argue that their rights were established when the judgment in the ejectment suit was rendered, and Bright did not record his deed from Whistle until two years following Whistle's sale to Lewis. During the trial, it was acknowledged that the quitclaim deed was executed without considering the mound as part of Lot 7. The appellant was aware of his entitlement to the 200 feet of accretions along Lot 7's southeast line, which he did not appeal from the circuit court's judgment. At the conclusion of the appellant's testimony, the defendants moved for a dismissal decree. The court noted that the appellant's claims, aside from laches, had not been sufficiently contested. Act 470 of 1949 was not applied, as the court recognized the appellant's right to argue his case based on his own testimony. The court affirmed the dismissal, confirming the deed's description of Lot 7 and surrounding parcels, totaling 79.69 acres.