From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyd v. Brown

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jan 27, 1964
373 S.W.2d 711 (Ark. 1964)

Opinion

No. 5-3163

Opinion delivered December 23, 1963. [Rehearing denied January 27, 1964.]

1. APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE TO PROFFER EXCLUDED TESTIMONY — REVIEW ON APPEAL. — An objection to the exclusion of testimony cannot be considered on appeal in the absence of showing what the testimony would have been. 2. TRIAL — EXCLUSION OF IMMATERIAL EVIDENCE. — In the absence of a showing that appellant had any interest in the real property in controversy, testimony by appellant's expert witness as to the market value would have been immaterial and the trial court correctly excluded it. 3. DESCENT DISTRIBUTION — ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT — PRESUMPTION AND BURDEN OF PROOF. — Appellant's contention that the court erred in not disposing of the property as provided by law for division of ancestral estates held without merit in the absence of testimony showing the land belonged to his father at the time of his death. 4. DESCENT DISTRIBUTION — ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — The fact that appellant was given one-fifth of the personal estate of his father's second wife did not amount to an admission on the part of the four heirs that he owned a one-fifth interest in the real property in controversy.

Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court, Guy Williams, Chancellor; affirmed.

Davis Davis Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

Chas. A. Walls. Jr., Joe P. Melton, for appellee.


The trial court ruled that appellant, James Harris Boyd, had no right to share equally with his half brother and his three half sisters in certain real estate — hence this appeal. The factual background is summarized below.

James Thomas Boyd and his wife, Mary Etta, were the parents of one son and three daughters, named respectively: William Bentley Boyd, Clara Lillian Rowe, Etta Blanche Eifling, and Minnie Lucy Brown. We will at times hereafter refer to these as the four heirs. Appellant was the son of the said James Thomas Boyd by a former wife. James Thomas Boyd died in 1949 and his wife, Mary Etta, died later, intestate, in possession of the real property here involved. Other pertinent facts are revealed by the following summary of the pleadings.

Petition: Minnie Lucy Brown filed a complaint against her brother and two sisters alleging that they were equal owners of four parcels of land in Lonoke (each parcel specifically described) that the lands were not susceptible of division in kind; that they should be sold and the money equally divided between the four heirs. Order: The court ordered the lands to be sold and the proceeds to be divided between the four heirs. Intervention: Appellant set out the relationship mentioned above; that the property was an ancestral estate of James Thomas Boyd; that he (appellant) was entitled to an undivided one-fifth interest; that James Thomas Boyd deeded the property to Mary Etta Boyd in 1932 for a consideration of $1,000, no part of which was paid; that James Thomas Boyd willed all his property to Mary Etta with the understanding she would give appellant one-fifth; and that the four heirs were estopped to deny his one-fifth interest. The prayer was to have the land sold and the proceeds divided equally between Me five parties. Response: The four heirs denied all allegations of intervenor; admitted Mary Etta bought the lands from James Thomas Boyd for $1,000 which amount was paid; admitted the will but said none of subject lands were included; admitted paying appellant one-fifth of proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of Mary Etta payable to James Thomas Boyd.

After a hearing on the above issues the court resolved all issues against appellant, who now prosecutes this appeal for a reversal on four separate grounds.

First, appellant says the court erred in refusing certain testimony proffered by him. "Q. Mr. Boyd, your father, did he ever say anything to you — ?" The court sustained an objection to the proffered testimony. Obviously, no reversible error is shown. Appellant did not set out what his testimony would have been if he had been allowed to testify. No principle of procedure is better established by our decisions than the rule that an objection to the exclusion of testimony cannot be considered on appeal in the absence of a showing what the testimony would have been. See: Wallace v. Riales, 218 Ark. 70, 234 S.W.2d 199, and Weston v. Hilliard, 232 Ark. 535, 338 S.W.2d 926.

Second, we see no reversible error in the court's refusal to allow appellant's witness to testify as an expert regarding the market value of the subject real property. Regardless of the qualifications of the witness as an expert, any such testimony was immaterial since it was not shown that appellant had any interest in the land.

Third, appellant contends the court erred in not disposing of the property as provided by law for the division of an ancestral estate. There can be no merit in this contention because there was no testimony to show the land belonged to James Thomas Boyd at the time of his death.

Finally, we cannot agree with appellant's contention that the four heirs were estopped to deny he had a one-fifth interest in the subject lands. This contention is based on the fact that appellant was given one fifth of the personal estate of Mary Etta Boyd, deceased. This could have been merely an act of generosity on the part of the four heirs or it could have been because (as contended by the four heirs) a life insurance policy on Mary Etta's life was payable to appellant's father. In either case, this circumstance in no way amounts to an admission on the part of the four heirs that appellant owned a one-fifth interest in the subject real estate.

Although the point is not raised or argued by appellant, it might be contended that the rule in Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S.W.2d 225, is applicable here because no testimony was introduced by the four heirs in response to the testimony introduced by the intervenor. Even so, the case must be affirmed since appellant's testimony wholly failed to make out a prima facie case in his favor.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Boyd v. Brown

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jan 27, 1964
373 S.W.2d 711 (Ark. 1964)
Case details for

Boyd v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:BOYD v. BROWN

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Jan 27, 1964

Citations

373 S.W.2d 711 (Ark. 1964)
373 S.W.2d 711

Citing Cases

Simmons v. McCollum

As the record is silent as to what evidence would have been given, we cannot say appellant was prejudiced. An…

Sellers v. West-Ark Const. Co.

Next, appellants contend that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of additional contracts between the…