Legal Opinion

Shinn v. Barrie

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 13, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancery court was correct. No statutory right of redemption from the sale under the mortgage exists because the mortgagor had waived his right of such a redemption in the mortgage. Smith, v. Simpson, 129 Ark. 275, 195 S. W. 1067.

Independent of the statute allowing the redemption by paying the amount for which the property is sold with interest and costs, there is in equity a right to redeem from the mortgage, which right may be exercised by the mortgagor or any one claiming the equity of redemption under him. The rule in equity,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  2. Wood v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. RadfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1996
  3. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1996
  4. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API