Court Opinion

ID: 7810617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:12:25.499699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:27.669759
License: Public Domain

Hast, J. (after stating'the facts). We think the chancellor was warranted in holding that Phipps was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Phipps’ testimony to the effect that he paid full value for the property to Major Pemberton is undisputed. He also testified that he purchased the property without any notice whatever of the claim of the plaintiffs that a part of the purchase price from the chancery sale in the partition proceedings remained unpaid. It is true that his testimony on this point is disputed by that of D. W. Carr. The general rule is when a party relies upon the defense of being a bona fide purchaser and shows that he has paid a valuable consideration, the burden of showing that he purchased with notice is upon the.party alleging it, or who relies on the notice to defeat the claim of the bona fide purchaser. White v. Moffett, 108 Ark. 490, and Jones v. Ainell, 123 Ark. 532. There was nothing in the commissioner’s deed to indicate that any of the purchase money remained unpaid. On the other hand, it is fairly inferable from the recital which we have copied in our statement of facts and from the fact that the court confirmed and approved the sale, that the purchase price had been paid. The very purpose of making the sale was to divide the proceeds thereof among the three sisters who owned the land. Moreover, the chancellor was warranted in finding that no part of the purchase price remained unpaid. It is true that the plaintiffs testified- in a general way that Hannah Norman only paid $500 each on the purchase price to her two sisters and that the balance of the purchase price due them was not paid. Their attorney in the partition proceedings also testified that the purchase price was not paid at the time. He frankly admits however that he left the State soon afterward and when he returned four or five years later the matter had passed out of his mind. Hannah Norman testified, however, that she paid the purchase price before the sale was confirmed and approved by the court. The plaintiffs admitted that she sold the property to Major Pemberton for money with which to pay her two sisters that part of the purchase price due them. It will be remembered that the sale was confirmed in July, 1905. The present suit was not instituted until the 22d day of March, 1919. No explanation is given of this long delay. The sale was made for the purpose of dividing the proceeds between the owners of the property sold. The sale was approved and confirmed by the court. The commissioner’s deed does not contain any recital that any part of the purchase money is unpaid. On the contrary, it recites that in consideration of the premises and the said sum of $2,200 that the commissioner has granted, bargained and sold the property. This would seem to indicate that the purchase price had been paid. In any event, when the long lapse of time since the sale, with the attendant circumstances are considered, it can not be said that a finding by the chancellor to the effect that the purchase price had been paid is against the preponderance of the evidence. It is insisted, however, that the evidence of Hannah Norman to the effect that she paid the purchase price can not be considered because her deposition was taken by the plaintiffs, and counsel invokes the rule that a party to an action has no right to read a deposition taken by his adversary. Her deposition was taken pursuant to an agreement between the attorneys for the respective parties, and therefore did not fall within the rule invoked by counsel for the plaintiffs. The deposition, having been taken by agreement, became the property of both parties and either party had the right to read it to the jury. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hanley, 85 Ark. 263. It follows that the decree must be affirmed.