McGehee v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The mortgage is void for uncertainty in the description of the land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. The mortgage is void for uncertainty in the description of the land. Fuller v., Fellows, 30 Ark., 657; Mooney v. Goolidge, ib., 6Jfl; Howell v. Bye, 35 ib., 477; Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss., 596; Hughes v. Streeter, 24 III., 647; Shackelford v. Bailey, 35 III., 387. It was error for the Chancellor to look into the title papers filed by intervenor and piece out the description in the deed by reference to them. Percifull and Wife v. Platt, 36 Ark., 456; Hall v. Bonville, ib., 492. The decree is correct and in accord with Doe v.…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
This suit was begun by the State, and proceedings had, under the special act of January 16,1861, to foreclose a stock mortgage executed by William B. Mc-Keil to the Real Estate Bank in 1837.
Upon such showing of right as is required by section 4 of the act, the appellant was allowed by the court below to defend, as owner, and he demurred to the bill. His demurrer was overruled, and he rested. The lands were condemned, and he appealed.
Conveyancks: Descript i o n of land, certainty in.
There is no complaint of any irregularity in the proceedings as not being authorized by the act, and none…
2Cited by1 opinion
- R. S. Biggers Company v. NormanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945