¶1(Dissenting). We think that the majority of the court have failed to give proper.effect to the .testimony as set forth in the opinion; and have disregarded well-settled rules concerning the presumption arising from the act of a husband in conveying property or causing it to be conveyed to his wife, and the degree of proof necessary to establish a resulting trust. There is, we think, no proof .at all tending to overcome the legal presumption that the conveyances to Mrs. Hubbard were intended as a gift. Every act of the parties is, according to our view, consistent with the idea that a gift was intended, and there are no facts or circumstances proved which are inconsistent with that intention.
117 Ark. 563
Hubbard v. McMahon
Decided April 12, 1915
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1915-04-12
Frierson, Chancellor; statement by the court. Appellee is a grandson of W. F. Hubbard, who died in Mississippi County in the fall of 1913, leaving surviving him his widow .and the following 'Children: Mrs. Halttie McMahon, Mrs. Mays, Mrs. Huggins, Mrs. Déan and Clarence Hubbard, Sr. Mrs. Hattie McMahon was the mother of appellee, and Clarence Hubbard, Sr., was the father of Clarence Hubbard, Jr.. Mrs. McMahon died leaving surviving her, .as her sole heir at law, the appellee.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
affirmed · Decided 1915-04-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1988
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →