Dalton v. Brown
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Randolph. Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; Since Bispham did not assert any right to redeem, Dalton’s right to all of the surplus became absolute. Bispham was a party to the suit, but made no claim to the surplus. He was the only person who ever had any right to interfere with Dalton’s right to the surplus. Bispham did not elect to redeem, and Dalton, therefore, became the absolute owner of the surplus.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Randolph. Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; Since Bispham did not assert any right to redeem, Dalton’s right to all of the surplus became absolute. Bispham was a party to the suit, but made no claim to the surplus. He was the only person who ever had any right to interfere with Dalton’s right to the surplus. Bispham did not elect to redeem, and Dalton, therefore, became the absolute owner of the surplus. The sale to Brown conveyed all interest of Bispham, subject to the mortgage and the Schnabaum judgment, including Bispham’s right to redeem. Kirby’s Digest, § 4440;…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). It appears from the statement of facts that the mortgage of Bispham to the Randolph County Bank was the first lien on the land in question, and it is conceded by both parties that the mortgage lien is paramount to both of the judgment liens. Subsequent to its execution, on January 20, 1915, Schna-baum obtained a judgment against Bispham. Under section 4438 of Kirby’s Digest, this judgment became a lien on the land in question, subject to the mortgage lien, from the date of its rendition, and under section 4439 the lien continued for three years. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Turner v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
- Porter v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rose v. LoughboroughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Warren Cotton Oil & Manufacturing Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929