Court Opinion

ID: 9825686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:55:57.447525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:16.546639
License: Public Domain

Robins, J. (on rehearing). It is earnestly urged by counsel for appellant that, even though there is no bill of exceptions in the transcript, still error was shown in the record because it appears therefrom that the lower court, in awarding judgment in favor of appellee, necessarily relied ón oral testimony offered to contradict the terms of the deed (executed by appellee to appellant, Annie Quinn Sewell) as to the consideration. This deed recites that the consideration thereof was “the sum of $2 to us in hand paid,” and the lower court permitted oral testimony to be introduced to show that $2 was not the true consideration, and that there was a balance thereof remaining unpaid. We have many times held that parol testimony is admissible to show the real consideration of a deed is different from that set forth in the deed and also to show that thé consideration has not been paid, even though the deed may recite payment thereof. In the case of Lay v. Gaines, 130 Ark. 169, 196 S. W. 919, the lower court had given judgment for a vendor, based on oral testimony to the effect that the consideration recited in the deed was not the true consideration. In affirming the judgment of the lower court this court said: “It constitutes no violation of the rules of evidence for a vendor to be allowed to show that the price has not in fact been paid and that the amount is different from that recited in the deed.” In the ease of Lollis v. Lollis, 191 Ark. 199, 85 S. W. 2d 732, this court held (headnote): “Parol evidence is competent to show the amount of consideration for a deed is different from that recited therein and to contradict the recital of payment thereof.” Other cases .in which the same rule is announced are: Barnett v. Hughey, 54 Ark. 195, 15 S. W. 454; Davis v. Jernigan, 71 Ark. 494, 76 S. W. 554; Mewes v. Mewes, 116 Ark. 155, 172 S. W. 853; St. Louis & North Arkansas Railroad Company, v. Crandell, 75 Ark. 89, 86 S. W. 855, 112 Am. St. Rep. 42; Morton v. Morton, 82 Ark. 492, 102 S. W. 213; Bass v. Starnes, 108 Ark. 357, 158 S. W. 136; Hockaday v. Warmack, 121 Ark. 518, 182 S. W. 263; Wade v. Texarkana Building & Loan Association, 150 Ark. 99, 233 S. W. 937; Howard v. Howard, 152 Ark. 387, 238 S. W. 604; Whitlock v. Barham & Duncan, 172 Ark. 198, 288 S. W. 4; Moncrief v. Miller, 178 Ark. 1069, 14 S. W. 2d 227; Moon v. Gilliam, 187 Ark. 581, 61 S. W. 2d 64, and Rowland v. Ward, 178 Ark. 851, 12 S. W. 2d 785. The lower court did not err in permitting the introduction of oral testimony to vary the recitals of the deed as to the consideration, and as'to the payment thereof. The petition for rehearing is overruled.