Bank of Pangburn v. Tate
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Chancery Court; J. E. Martinecm, Chancellor; The claims of appellant were prior to and paramount to that of the intervener, W. D. Tate, because (1) the agreed statement of facts shows that a writ of attachment was issued on December 19, 1919, and levied January 1, 1920, upon Pierce’s equity in the property, while appellee’s transcript from the justice of the peace court was not filed in the clerk’s office until afterward and was never entered on the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from White Chancery Court; J. E. Martinecm, Chancellor; The claims of appellant were prior to and paramount to that of the intervener, W. D. Tate, because (1) the agreed statement of facts shows that a writ of attachment was issued on December 19, 1919, and levied January 1, 1920, upon Pierce’s equity in the property, while appellee’s transcript from the justice of the peace court was not filed in the clerk’s office until afterward and was never entered on the judgment docket of the circuit court. Appellant’s attachment was the prior and paramount lien. 38 Ark. 421; 40 Ark. 129. 1. The…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
This appeal involves the priority of liens growing out of writs of attachment levied upon the equitable interest of J. W. Pierce in lot four, block two, Skillern’s addition to Pangburn, Arkansas. Appellant enforced a vendor’s lien note, in the sum of $450, which he had purchased, against said property, on the 28th day of February, 1920. After paying the indebtedness and costs, there remained in the hands of the commissioner $265.82.
Prior to the institution of the foreclosure suit, appellant had instituted a suit against J. W. Pierce in the White Circuit Court for $1,500 and obtained a writ of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hines v. ParryTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Barkis v. BellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964