Overstreet Grain Co. v. Ford
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The description in the deed of trust, as against a third person, is not sufficiently definite. Kirby’s Dig., § 5407; 6 Cyc. 1022; 52 Ark. 278; 57 Id. 152; 41 Id. 70; 43 Id. 350; 140 N. W. 401; 71 S. W. 713; 66 N. Y. S. 665; 7 Oh. St. 197; 7 Col. 426; 4 Pac. 45; 76 la. 553; 41 N. W. 310; 77 Ga. 365; 37 la. 374; 58 Miss. 126. 2. A bond for costs should have been filed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The description in the deed of trust, as against a third person, is not sufficiently definite. Kirby’s Dig., § 5407; 6 Cyc. 1022; 52 Ark. 278; 57 Id. 152; 41 Id. 70; 43 Id. 350; 140 N. W. 401; 71 S. W. 713; 66 N. Y. S. 665; 7 Oh. St. 197; 7 Col. 426; 4 Pac. 45; 76 la. 553; 41 N. W. 310; 77 Ga. 365; 37 la. 374; 58 Miss. 126. 2. A bond for costs should have been filed. Kirby’s Dig., § § 959-61. The property was sufficiently described. 39 Ark. 394; 6 Cyc. 1022; note 25; 127 N. C. 508; 55 la. 421; 7 N. W. 675; 108 Mich. 114; 65…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
S. H. Ford, instituted this action in the chancery court against R. P. Wilson and the Overstreet Grain Company to foreclose a mortgage on two mules.
R. P. Wilson borrowed two hundred dollars from ¡S. H. Ford, and on the 23d day of December, lyütí, executed a mortgage to him on two black mules to secure this amount. The property is described in the mortgage as follows:
“The following lands and personal property, situated in the County of Columbia, and ¡State of Arkansas, towit: Two black mules, two and four years old, the same being now in the possession of the party of the first part, R. P.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lightle v. CastlemanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889