The Sentinel=record., 1911-12-17
Opinion

Dec II, 1911.
 Davis vs. Harrell.
 Opinion.
 McCulloch, c. J
 Appellee, Mary E. HarreIl, is the daughter and only child of Col. John M Harrell deceased, of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and she instituted this ac- tion in the chancery court of rarland county against appellants, who were grantees Of her. father, to establish her title to and recover possession of certain real estate situated in that city. She was about 3l years of age when she instituted the action on September 4th, 1908, and her father died On July 4th, 1907, after having conveyed the property in controversy to George R. Bedding and H. R. Morrison, who, in turn. conveyed It to one Sheylin. who conveyed to ap- pellants. Sam J. Davis and wife. Col. Harrell purchased the property from one Carter Brutus in the year Of 1878, when appellee was an, infant of tender years, and, as gift or advancement to his daughter, he caused the con veyance 10 be made 10 her by Bru- tus. He built on the lot a large and comfortable residence, with out houses, out of his own means, and he and his wife and child occupied it as home. Carter Brutus occupied the lot, or 8 portion of it, at the time of his said conveyance to ap- pellee, but the title was in the Unit ed States and was subsequently, pat May 10th, 1882. h December, 1884, 5rutus executed another conveyance to one Mary Golf, who a few days later re conveyed to Amelia Brutus. An enhancement grew up between Col Harrel and his wife, appellee's mother, mother which resulted in q seearsi- tion. Mrs, Harrell left home in the year 1888 and went to the otate ot Tennessee, taking the child with her, and they never returned. Col. HarreIl continued to occupy the property as q place of residence until he sold it to Bedding and Morrison in the year 1903. Mrs. HarrelI obtained n the courts of Tennessee a decree of d. vorce. and in 1892 married one J.
 Fl. Thompson. Col. Harrel1 Rlso obtained decree of divorce in the chancerY court of Garland County about the time of his wife's inter marriage with Thompson. The es- trangement between Col. Harrell and his wife and daughter was complete. He did not communicate with either Of them after Mrs. HarreTls inter marriage with Thompson and never thereafter contributed anything to their support The last communica ton shown positively by the record was a letter from him to appellee dated January SOth, 1891, in which he enclosed a remittance of $35 to pay for her board. This letter disclosed the strained relations between fath. CT and daughter, though she was only II years of age at that time. She testifies that she wrote to him after that time, but received no response, and that she never thereafter saw him or heard from him. She tes- titled that she resented her fater's attitude of hostility toward her moth. CT and lost all affection for him. She took the name of Thompson and bore that name ever afterwards. which, of course. incensed her father very greatly and added fuel to the flame of his indignation. Before that time Mrs. Harrell ha dcaused slight change to be made in appellees name at her christening from what Col. Harrell had intended 1t to be and he seems to have lad consider ably stress upon this wrong which he conceived had been done him. Shortly after the separation, Col. Harrell's maiden sister, Mary E. Harrel, came to live with him as his companion and nousekeeper. and they resided together at the dwelling house on the property in controversy until Miss Harrell's death in April 190f On March Sth, 1892. Amelia Brutus, the wife of Carter Brutus, executed to Mary F. Harrell. Col. Harrell's sister, deed purporting to convey to her the property in controversy. This conveyance was properly placed of record. and from that time up to her death Miss liar rell claimed the property as her own. t was assessed and insured in her name and listed in her name for sale with real estate men. Miss Harrell died intestate. leaving Col. HarreII