Going v. Amos

There is one issue in this case which was not considered by the trial court or the majority making the opinion, and I think that issue calls for a reversal.

The overlookedv issue to which I refer is set out in appellant’s brief as the 5th point: That the court erred in refusing to hold that if executed and acknowledged, the deed in question was in fact a mortgage.

This court has held numerous times to the effect that if a deed (regular in form) was intended to secure a loan for money, equity will construe it to be a mortgage. In the recent case of Ehrlich v. Castleberry, 227 Ark. 426, 299 S. W.…