Court Opinion

ID: 7816790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:39:18.948866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:37.431510
License: Public Domain

Cart.eton Harris, Chief Justice (dissenting). I feel that this court is in error in reversing this case. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, in my opinion, is to the effect that Virginia Rush, from the beginning, recognized that she had no right to, or interest in, this stock. Charles Beasley, Vice-President and Trust Officer of the First National Bank of Fort Smith, Sam Stevinson, another vice-president, and Pauline Plummer, the only natural child of Paul Rush, all testified that Mrs. Rush had told them that she had made a settlement with her husband in 1957, and, at that time, Paul Rush had given her approximately one-half of all his stock in the corpora-tions here involved as her full share of all property claims against him. I can see no reason for these people to misstate the facts, since all stood to gain financially if the transfer to appellee Smith were set aside. As an heir of the estate, Mrs. Plummer, of course, would get a much larger share from the estate if the stock sale be set aside, and likewise, of course, the First National Bank, administrator of the estate, would get a larger administrator’s fee, if the size of the estate were increased. The statements of these witnesses are disputed only by appellant, and there are discrepancies in her testimony. It is also noticeable that Mrs. Rush waited over a year after her husband’s death before instituting suit to set the sale aside. Likewise, her explanation for signing the resolution,. recognizing Mrs. Smith as the owner of the stock in question, is to the effect that she was pressured or coerced into signing. Again, we have only her statement, and this is denied by the others, except that, as pointed out in the majority opinion, Mr. Stevinson told appellant that he saw nothing wrong in her signing the resolution. I would hardly call such a statement pressure or coercion —and, since I am convinced that appellant originally recognized that she had no right to this stock, and the institution of the suit was based on an afterthought— I too would have to say that I see nothing wrong in her having signed the resolution. In this case, we again have a situation where the Chancellor personally heard the testimony, observed the witnesses, and had every opportunity to notice their demeanor upon the stand, and to form his conclusions as to who was telling the truth. The trial court thus had an advantage that we do not have, and it is evident, from his decision, that he did not place full credence in all that was said by appellant. I would affirm the case, and therefore, respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice McFaddin joins in this dissent. Paul Ward, Associate Justice (dissenting). I agree with the majority in discarding five contentions made by appellees to affirm the decree of the trial court, but I am unable to agree with the one reason for reversing. As a ground for reversal the majority say: “After considering the proof as a whole we are convinced that the entire transaction ivas demonstrably a sham. Paul Rush was therefore the actual owner of the stock at his death. ’ ’ There is no direct proof that Paul Rush never intended to sell the stock to his sister — no direct proof that the transaction was a sham. The trial court found it was not a sham. If it was a sham, one of two conclusions must follow: either Paul Rush deceived his own attorney and the vice-president of the First National Bank of Fort Smith, or those two persons participated in the deception. There is, to my mind, convincing evidence that Paul Rush did in fact transfer the stock to his sister, Frances. She signed a note to the bank for $50,550 which the bank still holds. The vice-president testified Frances negotiated the loan to purchase the stock, and that he “personally gave her $50,550 in cash” (quote taken from the abstract) . Frances testified she loaned Paul $5,000 to start the business, and that she was one of the original stockholders in the Rush Company and the Waldron Company; that Paul came to her home very much upset over the divorce action, and said he was going to sell his stock and get out of the business; that she tried to reason with him, telling him things might work out; she told Paul she couldn’t buy the stock for what it shows on the books, and he said he never did have any faith in those figures; that they discussed the fact that the company was losing money, the effect of the divorce suit and the result of his leaving- the company, and that she offered him par value for his stock. She further stated that she had kept the interest on loan paid, and that the stock certificates are in custody of the bank. Under the above state of the record I feel that the trial court’s decree is supported by the weight of the evidence, and that the decree should be affirmed.