Legal Opinion

Ingraham v. Baum

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 21, 1918PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The sale was hot void because of clerical errors in description, nor because the probate court authorized a private sale. The money was duly paid and the sale approved by the court. The purchaser took possession in good faith and paid taxes and made valuable improvements.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The sale was hot void because of clerical errors in description, nor because the probate court authorized a private sale. The money was duly paid and the sale approved by the court. The purchaser took possession in good faith and paid taxes and made valuable improvements. The act of the agent binds the guardian. 76 Ark. 615; 89 Id. 435; 65 Id. 325; 46 Id. 210; 21 Id. 533; 15 Id. 540. If the .sale was void a decree should have been entered for the repayment of the purchase money, interest and taxes, etc.…

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

William and Marguerite Baum brought this suit to recover from appellant Ingraham their undivided interest in lots 5 and 6, block 3, Griffith & Nix Addition to Fort Smith, Arkansas. The lots were owned by their father at the time of his death, and he- was survived by his wife and three children. The third child, Mary Baum, died without issue, and the plaintiffs claimed a part of this share also as heir at law of their deceased sister. The complaint contained a prayer for the restoration of the possession of the land and for an accounting as to rents.

Ingraham admitted having possession of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Landreth v. HensonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wedmore v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  3. Baum v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  4. Baum v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  5. The Texas Co. v. SewellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API