Court Opinion

ID: 7810289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:12:04.722097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:27.151038
License: Public Domain

Hart, J. (after stating the facts). The court was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. It is true both according to the allegations of the complaint and the averments of the answer that the money was in the possession of the defendant, but the mere possession of the money by the defendant could not raise any presumption of a gift to him. Neither was he a competent witness to establish the fact that Hemann had given him the money in his lifetime. Such testimony would clearly be within the inhibition of the Constitution which provides that in an action by or against the executors and administrators in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statements of the testator or intestate unless he is called to testify thereto by the opposite party. Wilson v. Edwards, 79 Ark. 69, and Carter v. Younger, 123 Ark. 266, and cases cited. So all the testimony that went to the jury was that C. H. Hemann lived at the home of the defendant for some time before he died and that Hemann buried the money involved in this lawsuit. The defendant in his answer admitted that the money was in his possession. No higher proof was necessary than this admission of the defendant that he had the money in his possession to warrant the court in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. It is true that the defendant sought to justify his possession by a gift from Hemann in his lifetime, but it devolved upon him to establish that fact by proof, and, not having done so, the court properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The judgment will therefore be affirmed.