Cogswell v. McKeogh
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court. Hon. C. B. Wood, Circuit Judge. Parol evidence is not admissible at law to show that an-instrument, absolute on its face, was intended as a mortgage. 31 Ark., 166; 37 ib., Uf9. It is only in equity that it can be done. Notes to Chase’s Case, 17 Am.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court. Hon. C. B. Wood, Circuit Judge. Parol evidence is not admissible at law to show that an-instrument, absolute on its face, was intended as a mortgage. 31 Ark., 166; 37 ib., Uf9. It is only in equity that it can be done. Notes to Chase’s Case, 17 Am. Dec., 302; 21 Wend , 36; 6 Hill, 219; 16 Barbour, 439. The cause should have been transferred to equity, aud though no exceptions were saved, yet when errors of law go to the very essence of the action and the jurisdiction of the court, the court will reverse, as in 39 Ark., 249- No exceptions were saved to the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
McKeogh sued Mrs. Cogswell, alleging that he, being indebted to her, executed two mortgages, one for $608 and another for $1,500, on certain household goods and furniture, to secure said sums. That he was 'tenant of defendant, occupying and renting from her a hotel in Hot Springs. That the money being due and unpaid on the mortgages, they entered into a contract by which she agreed to take all the property included in the mortgages at a sum equal to the amount paid out by him for same, less whatever certain arbitrators should say the property had been damaged by use, etc., and would pay him…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sessoms v. BallardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Oldman v. Melton, AdministratorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Union Life Insurance Company v. PritchettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945