Clapp Bros. v. Halliday Bros.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Chicot Circuit Court, in Chancery. Hon. J. M. Bradley, Judge. 1. Appellees’ mortgage was void as to appellants, even with actual notice.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Chicot Circuit Court, in Chancery. Hon. J. M. Bradley, Judge. 1. Appellees’ mortgage was void as to appellants, even with actual notice. (33 Ark., 203; 1$ ib., 11¡.1; 22 ib., 136 and it is no lien against them. ]¡,0 ib., 539. Appellants did not assume to pay appellees’ debt, but' only intended to protect themselves, by providing that they should be allowed to retain the amount of appellees’ debt, as against Baker & Oarico, in addition to what they might owe appellants. The curative act of 1883 can have no bearing upon this case, since appellants’ money was paid out upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Baker & Carico mortgaged the same growing crop of cotton, first to Halliday Brothers, and afterwards to Clapp Brothers & Co. The acknowledgment of the first mortgage was defective, the word “consideration” being omitted in the officer’s certificate. But the second mortgage contained this clause of reference: “And we (Baker ,& Carico) do further agree, that, whereas, on the 21st day of June, 1880, we executed a mortgage to Messrs. Halliday Brothers, of Cairo, Illinois, on the eighteen acres of cotton then being grown by us on the Leland plantation, in Chicot county, being the same eighteen…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Key West Wharf & Coal Co. v. PorterSupreme Court of Florida · 1912
- McFaddin v. BellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Sunny South Lumber Co. v. Neimeyer Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Nation v. Planters and Mechanics BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Mark v. MaberrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.