Legal Opinion

Naill v. Kirby

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 28, 1924PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). Both parties claim title under mesne conveyances from James Hill. Hence it is not necessary to go back of his title; for neither party would be allowed the inconsistency of claiming under and attacking the same title. The plaintiff, G. W. Naill, claims that he is entitled to maintain this action upon either of two theories. The first is that he has the paper title to the land in controversy, and the second is that, even if it be decreed that the defendant has the legal title to the land, or any equitable interest therein, he is an innocent purchaser for…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cordano v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Ward v. StarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  3. Wimberly v. ScogginSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  4. Thalheimer v. LockertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  5. Swindall v. FordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Magee v. YoungTexas Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Kerby v. FieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  3. Walls v. HumphriesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2013
  4. Coates v. ColemanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1947
  5. Scott v. CarnesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931

9 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