Williams v. Courton

Hart, J., (after stating the facts). The record shows that the forty-acre tract of land in controversy in Benton County, Arkansas, was the homestead of Clarence C. Courton and Izora B. Courton, his wife. Izora B. Courton first signed a deed conveying said land to her husband, and an Oklahoma form, which neither mentioned her homestead nor her dower, was used. Subsequently it was decided to erase the name of Clarence C. Courton as grantee in the deed and to leave the name of the grantee blank. When Clarence C. Courton made the trade with Clyde Y. Seale and delivered the deed to him, the deed was blank as to the grantee. This court has held that an instrument purporting to be a deed, in .which a blank has been left for the name of the grantee, is not operative, and that written authority to fill in the blank is necessary. In Adamson v. Hartman, 40 Ark. 58, the court said: “An instrument of writing, purporting to be a conveyanee, signed and acknowledged by the grantor, and otherwise in good form, does not become his deed until the name of■ the grantee and the amount of the ■ consideration are inserted therein. And an agent cannot fill such blanks in the grantor’s absence, unless his authority is in writing. ’ ’ Numerous cases are cited in support of the decision, and, whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is settled in this State that the instrument in question could not become the deed of the grantor unless the name of a grantee was inserted, and that that act could not be performed by an agent, in the absence of the principal, unless his authority was in writing. It is not claimed that Clarence C. Courton had any written authority to insert the name of Clyde V. Seale as grantee. The chancellor found that the forty-acre tract of land in question was the homestead of Clarence ,C. Courton and his wife. His finding in this behalf is supported by the evidence in the record. Under our statute, Clarence C. Courton could not convey the homestead without his wife joining in the deed. Pipkin v. Williams, 57 Ark. 242, 21 S. W. 433; Ferrell v. Wood, 149 Ark. 376, 232 S. W. 577, 16 A. L. R. 1033; and Miles v. Jerry, 158 Ark. 314, 250 S. W. 34. It follows that the decree of the chancellor was correct, and it will be affirmed.