Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Aberdeen Oil Co. v. Goucher
Citations: 235 Ark. 787; 362 S.W.2d 20; 17 Oil & Gas Rep. 395; 1962 Ark. LEXIS 665Docket: 5-2814
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 26, 1962; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Jim Johnson, Associate Justice, presided over an appeal concerning a decree that quieted title. Walter and Alice Goucher (appellees) sought to quiet title to specific real property against Aberdeen Oil Co. Inc. and Crescent Oil Gas Corp. (appellants) and others, aiming to cancel mineral grants associated with the property. The Gouchers' predecessor, J. W. Stills, executed a mineral deed on February 12, 1930, conveying a fractional interest in minerals to E. C. Catlett for a consideration of $1.00. This deed was recorded on March 4, 1930, and was signed by mark, indicating potential illiteracy or infirmity. Catlett later conveyed parts of this interest, with the appellants ultimately acquiring nearly half of the mineral rights. On May 4, 1946, Stills transferred the land to the Gouchers, who recorded the deed on September 18, 1946. In March 1962, the Gouchers filed an amended complaint alleging fraudulent acquisition of the mineral grant, lack of valid consideration, and claiming adverse possession with payment of taxes for over seven years. After trial, the chancellor canceled the mineral grant and confirmed fee simple title in the Gouchers, citing the insufficient consideration and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed as evidence of fraud. The trial court noted that the mineral grant's nominal consideration and the grantors' signatures by mark warranted further inquiry into the legitimacy of the transaction. The appellants appealed, arguing the trial court's findings were legally erroneous and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Despite the mineral deed being recorded 32 years prior, the appellants claimed they acted without notice of any defects or adverse claims when purchasing their interests, and all original parties to the deed are now deceased. The court reaffirmed that the standard of proof required to annul a deed is "clear, cogent, and convincing," exceeding a mere preponderance of evidence. In the case examined, there was insufficient evidence of fraud, adverse possession, or lack of consideration to justify setting aside the deed. A deed stating a consideration of $1.00, signed by marks, does not automatically render it void unless accompanied by fraud or gross inadequacy of consideration that "shocks the conscience." The burden of proving fraud lies with the party alleging it, and no evidence was presented to support such claims. The court emphasized that a valid deed can be executed by mark, and the presence of a nominal consideration does not invalidate the deed if there is an actual legal consideration involved. The ruling concluded that the deed remained valid, reversing the previous decree and directing consistent orders to be entered.