Eades v. Simpson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Van Burén Circuit Court; John I. Worthington, Judge; 1. All the instructions given for plaintiff were erroneous; those refused for defendant correctly state the law. The mortgage was indefinite in terms and could not be explained by oral testimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Van Burén Circuit Court; John I. Worthington, Judge; 1. All the instructions given for plaintiff were erroneous; those refused for defendant correctly state the law. The mortgage was indefinite in terms and could not be explained by oral testimony. The cotton was grown on Government land and no occupant has a right of property in the crop. 14 Ark. '282. 2. The cotton described in the mortgage and that in controversy are entirely different. 54 Ark. 91. Appellant was an innocent purchaser. 41 Id. 74. Parol evidence was not admissible. 43 Ark. 352; 80 N. W. 813; 47 Id. 127; 10 R. C.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is a suit in replevin to recover possession of a small quantity of cotton. The plaintiff Simpson claims title to the cotton in controversy under a mortgage from one Hightower, who cultivated the crop and gathered it. Defendant Eades purchased the cotton from Hightower and claims that the crop from which it was gathered was not described in the mortgage to Simpson. Hightower’s mortgage to Simpson described the property as a crop of corn and cotton “amounting to twelve acres to be grown on the farm of Bob Earl in Craig Township,” in Van Burén County. Hightower was a tenant on the Bob Earl…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Floyd v. RicksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853
- Gurley v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Bethea v. JeffresSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kelly v. WeirDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1965
- Beckler v. SnerlySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- United States v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952