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.
Sides v. McDonald
Citations: 228 Ark. 673; 310 S.W.2d 16; 1958 Ark. LEXIS 604Docket: 5-1456
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 10, 1958; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The central issue revolves around the delivery of a deed executed by H. C. Sides on September 21, 1944, which purported to transfer a 26-acre farm to the appellees. H. C. Sides died intestate on July 14, 1956, surviving by relatives including six appellees. At his death, Sides owned and possessed the farm, and a locked box containing the unrecorded warranty deed was discovered by a committee of relatives after his passing. The appellants, consisting of Sides' brother, sister, and five other nieces and nephews, sought to cancel the deed, arguing it was not delivered. The chancellor ruled that the deed had been properly delivered during Sides' lifetime, dismissing the appellants' complaint. A legal presumption arose that the deed was undelivered since it was found in Sides' possession at death, shifting the burden of proof to the appellees. Testimony from appellees Flora Patrick and Cecil Langhlin indicated that Sides verbally expressed his intent to transfer ownership of the farm, with Flora recounting Sides giving her the deed and stating his wish for them to inherit it after his death. Cecil confirmed receiving the deed but later returned it to Sides for safekeeping. Contrastingly, appellant Hillard Sides alleged that Cecil and others had previously claimed ignorance of the deed during its discovery. He also admitted to a strained relationship with Sides and other family members due to past disputes over inheritance. The testimonies presented by both sides contributed to the determination of whether valid delivery of the deed occurred prior to the grantor's death. Cecil Langhlin and others disputed Hillard Sides' claims about advising them to record a deed upon its discovery. The court reiterated that for a deed to be valid, it must be delivered, as mere signing and sealing do not suffice without this act. Delivery must demonstrate that the deed has passed beyond the control of the grantor, and both parties must intend for it to operate immediately to transfer title. Evidence of nondelivery can arise if a deed is found among the grantor's possessions after death, but this can be countered with proof of delivery. Additionally, returning a delivered deed to the grantor does not typically revert ownership unless it was returned for a specific act. The case at hand involved conflicting testimonies regarding the deed's delivery to the appellees by their uncle and its subsequent return for safekeeping. The chancellor, who assessed the witnesses' credibility, found in favor of the appellees, and the court upheld this decision, stating it was not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.