Modica v. Combs
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
(after stating’ the facts.) It is first insisted by counsel for the defendants that a court of equity will not reform and correct the description in a mortgage where such description is void for uncertainty. This contention is contrary to the rule laid down in Craig v. Pendleton, 89 Ark. 259. In that case a suit was instituted in the chancery court by the trustee in a deed of trust for the reformation and foreclosure of it. It was shown that the lot in question belong*ed to the mortgagor, but that the description in the conveyance was void for uncertainty. The court held that the mortgagee…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jones v. Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Blackburn v. RandolphSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Savage v. SavageSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Craig v. PendletonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Merryman v. BlountSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- Boatman v. DawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
- Foster v. RicheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Minton v. LongCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
- Burns v. Estate of ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Johnston v. SorrelsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.