Legal Opinion

Horn v. Hull

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 5, 1925PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts.) It may be- stated at the outset that the court did not err in refusing to vacate the original foreclosure decree on application of the appellants in that action under § 6266 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest. The statute provides that a defendant constructively summoned, and who does not appear, may at any time within two years, and not thereafter, after the rendition of the judgment appear in open court and move to have the action retried. In such cases there is no right of redemption from the sale of the mortgaged property, and the only remedy for the defendant…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
  2. Gibson v. HerriottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
  3. Davis v. HarrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Jackson v. Becktold Printing & Book Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  5. H. G. Pugh & Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Sanders v. FlennikenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  2. Lupton v. LuptonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
  3. Husband v. CrockettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  4. Hardy v. HiltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  5. Neal v. StuckeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API