Legal Opinion

Farmers' Building & Loan Ass'n v. Jones

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 31, 1900PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court in Chancery. Will P. Feazel, Judge. The wife’s acknowledgment was a substantial, if not a literal, compliance with the statute. 57 Ark. 242, 246. The mortgage carries the wife’s interest in the homestead. 58 Ark. 117, 123. The property was not the homestead of appellee at the time of the execution of the mortgage.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court in Chancery. Will P. Feazel, Judge. The wife’s acknowledgment was a substantial, if not a literal, compliance with the statute. 57 Ark. 242, 246. The mortgage carries the wife’s interest in the homestead. 58 Ark. 117, 123. The property was not the homestead of appellee at the time of the execution of the mortgage. The act of March, 18, 1887, does not prevent the husband from abandoning the homestead. 57 Ark. 242, 252. His abandonment and his declarations estop the wife. 35 Mich. 150. Appellant would be entitled to subrogation, even if the mortgage was…

1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.

This suit was brought by the building and. loan association to foreclose a mortgage executed by Jones and his wife on certain land. The complaint also set up the right of the appellant to be subrogated to a mortgage of one D. L„ Coleman, which a part of the money borrowed from appellant had been used to satisfy. The defense was usury, and the failure of Mrs. Jones to acknowledge the mortgage so as to convey the homestead under the act of March 18, 1887. The trial court held: (1.) That the mortgage was not properly acknowledged in accordance with said act, and was therefore void. (2.) That…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pipkin v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
  2. Sidway v. LawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
  3. Williams v. SwetlandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
  4. Titman v. MooreIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Guiod v. GuiodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Stewart v. PritchardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  2. Newton v. RussianSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  3. Mason v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  4. McKenzie v. RumphSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  5. Montgomery v. DaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906

6 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