The log cabin Democrat., 1908-11-06
s. 6. SMITH WINS LAND SUIT
Chancellor Wallace Decides Very
 Complicated Case.

OAhFAAS0SSN SNo\'
 Loss of Papers and Failure to Record Deeds
 Most Important
 Factor.
 Chancellor J. c. Wallace at noon today, after listening to testimony and arguments of attorneys for about day and a half, decided the case of H. H. Benedict vs. C. A. Griffith and $. c. Smith in favor of the defendant. s. G. Smith. This was suit that was instituted by Benedict to enforce a vendor s lien for unpaid purchase money, with interest, amounting to over S2ooo. .oo, on about POO acres of land on the Arkansas river in this county, now owned by $. G. Smith.
 It appeared from the testimony that the land involved in the suit was part of the estate of Russell Benedict, who was one of the early settlers of Faulkner county, and who died a number of years ago. After the death of the elder Bene- dict, partition suit was had in the chancery court and the land involved in the present suit was at that time set apart and allotted to H. H. Benedict as his part of his fathers estate. It seems that shortly alter this partition suit, probably about 1876, H. H. Bene- dict left Faulkner county, and left his land in charge of c. A. Griffith, Benedict's brother-in-law. Griffith continued in charge of the land involved in the suit, together with the other lands belonging to the original Benedict tract up until 1902, when he sold all his land to s. G. Smith, the POO acres which had been allotted to H. H. Bene- dict being included in Griffith $ deed to Smith.
 It was claimed on behalf of Ben edict that he sold his land to Grif- filth in 1895, and that the purchase price was SIooo, none of which was paid in cash, but eight notes were given therefor, six for SIoo each, maturing annually after the sale, and two for S2oo each, and these S2oo notes maturing with in- tervals of two years between them, and between the other notes, mak- ing the last note due in 1904. It was also claimed by Benedict that Griffith had made S2oo payment in 1902, and that Griffith had also acknowledged the justice of his debt in 1907, just before the bring ing of the suit. The deed which Benedict made to Griffith, in which it was claimed that these notes were all specifically mentioned, was never placed on record, and both the deed and the notes alleged to have been given for the purchase money of the land were lost. Grii- filth, however, testified that Bene- diets claim in regard to the sale and the deed and the notes was substantially correct, but there was considerable conflict in the testi- mony as to the date of the alleged sale by Benedict to Griffith, and the date of the notes, and the case hinged principally upon this point, as, if the sale was made at the time Benedict claimed it was, the two last notes for the land would not be barred by the statute of limita- ton of five years. Benedict and Griffith both stated that the sale occurred before the death of Laura Griffith, C. A. Griffith's wife, and it was shown conclusively by wit. nesses for Mir. Smith that she died in 1894.
 Another feature of the case. was Griffith $ contention that he did not intend to sell this land to Smith, but it was shown conclusively that the land was included in the deed, the deed further stating that it was intended to cover all the land Grif- filth had any interest in in Faulk- ner county, and that Griffith had never attempted to claim owner ship of it since his sale to Smith, but that Smith had been is posses sion of 1t ever since the sale.
 The chancellor held that the preponderance of the testimony showed that the trade between Griffith and Benedict, if such there had been, was made in 1892, and that all the notes were therefore barred by the st itute of limitation