Dailey v. Abbott
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from White Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. J. N. CypeRt, Circuit Judge. 1. Appellants should have been allowed to answer the amended complaint. 2. The power to redeem under the act 1879, after sale, is purely statutory, and must be pursued as such. Dickinson v. Hays, 26 Minn., 101. Prior to this act a sale under power of mortgage, barred the equity of redemption, and purchaser had complete title and right of possion.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from White Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. J. N. CypeRt, Circuit Judge. 1. Appellants should have been allowed to answer the amended complaint. 2. The power to redeem under the act 1879, after sale, is purely statutory, and must be pursued as such. Dickinson v. Hays, 26 Minn., 101. Prior to this act a sale under power of mortgage, barred the equity of redemption, and purchaser had complete title and right of possion. Pope v. Boycl, 22 Ark., 538. Under this act, the mortgagor gets the simple right to redeem in one year, the right of the parties remaining as before. Hence mortgagor not…
1Opinion of the Court
STATEMENT.
ENGLISH, C. J.
This was a bill to redeem land sold under a trust deed. The bill was filed in the Circuit Court of White county, January 22d, 1881, by B. H. Abbott, against J. L. Dailey, Wm. Clark and L. B. Mitchell, alleging in substance:
That plaintiff, on the 10th of April, 1879, executed to defendant Mitchell, a trust deed upon the South part of the North East quarter of section Eight in T. No. 5 N. R. 9 W., containing 60 acres, situate in White county, to secure to Mitchell the sum of about $45., payable 15th of October, 1879. That by the terms of the deed, Mitchell was made…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Danenhauer v. DawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Wood v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Lambright v. BalesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Keller v. WhittingtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Aetna Life Insurance v. StrykerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905