Conley v. Archillion
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The note was barred by the statute of limitations. 2. It was error to render a personal decree against ■ heirs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The note was barred by the statute of limitations. 2. It was error to render a personal decree against ■ heirs. The claim should have been presented for allowance to the administrator of Robert Conley and it was error to sue the widow and heirs. 35 Ark. 292; 40 Id. 544; 39 Id. 79-80; 45 Id. 303. 3. The decree is against the great preponderance of the testimony and the claim is barred by laches. 123 S. W. 1046-7; 145 Id. 886; 142 Id. 158. It was not fair and it is unconscionable for the old lady to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was brought by appellee to collect two notes, for $500 each, dated September 14, 1910, and due in one and two 3mars after date. The notes were originally executed by J. W. Conley to appellee, and were given in part payment of the purchase price of a certain eighty-acre tract of land, and were secured by a vendor’s lien reserved in the deed. Appellee lost the notes, and they remained lost for several years. After discovering the loss of the notes appellee endorsed upon the margin of the deed record concellation and satisfaction of the notes there mentioned and secured. The testimony…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cache Valley Lumber Co. v. Culver Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Real Estate Bank v. RawdonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
3Cited by2 opinions
- Taylor v. CheairsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944