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.
Tellier v. Darragh
Citations: 220 Ark. 363; 247 S.W.2d 960; 1952 Ark. LEXIS 710Docket: 4-9676
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 14, 1952; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
F. K. Darragh initiated legal action to quiet title to a one-third undivided interest in unimproved land near Little Rock, previously part of W. P. Feild, Jr.'s estate, who died in 1932. The estate's executrix, Mrs. Feild, sold this interest to herself in 1942, later transferring it to Darragh in 1950. Darragh's suit included claims against creditors of the Feild estate, particularly Grace W. Tellier and R. L. Bradley, arguing that the creditors' claims were barred by limitations and laches and constituted clouds on his title. Bradley sought to annul the executrix’s sale to herself, while Tellier claimed a lien on the property. The primary legal issue was whether the creditors waited too long to assert their rights. The chancellor dismissed their cross-complaints, noting the estate's insolvency and the executrix's actions to sell the property to satisfy debts. The executrix's sale, approved by the court, was executed to cover administration expenses and a funeral bill, with a lien in favor of J. A. Tellier's attorney fees. The appellants argued that their claims should be treated like judgments under a ten-year limitation, while Darragh contended that the relevant limitation was seven years, paralleling actions for recovery of real property, particularly in cases without adverse possession. The court's ruling highlighted the complexities of estate claims and their treatment under statutory limitations. The court determined that it need not decide whether a seven- or ten-year statute of limitations applies, as the matter can be resolved on other grounds. Mrs. Tellier, acting as attorney for the executrix, believed her 1942 sale to herself was valid and sought foreclosure of her lien rather than challenging the sale. The court found that the statute of limitations had expired on her claim, originally enforceable for ten years, as she waived her right to a sale by the probate court and accepted a contractual lien in the executrix's deed. Consequently, her claim fell under either a three- or five-year statute, making her eight-year delay too long. In contrast, Bradley's situation involved a claim probated in 1932, which was voidable due to the executrix's conflicting personal interest. Although his claim could seek a constructive trust, the lack of concealment meant he was subject to the statute of limitations and laches. The court noted significant changes since 1932, including the loss of the estate's right of contribution due to the creditor's delay and the outlawing of preferred claims that originally prioritized Bradley's claim. Additionally, the Feild family had been paying taxes, and the property was sold to a bona fide purchaser. These factors led the court to conclude that Bradley's claim was stale and denied him equitable relief. The judgment was affirmed, with Chief Justice Grieein Smith dissenting.