Legal Opinion

Modica v. Combs

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 2, 1923PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Jones v. Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  2. Blackburn v. RandolphSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
  3. Savage v. SavageSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  4. Craig v. PendletonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  5. Merryman v. BlountSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Boatman v. DawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  2. Foster v. RicheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  3. Minton v. LongCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
  4. Burns v. Estate of ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
  5. Johnston v. SorrelsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1987

2 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