Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. Modglin

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 28, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hast, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Counsel for Modglin seek to uphold the judgment on the ground that the mortgage was too indefinite in the description of the corn. It will foe observed from our statement of facts that the corn is described as all the crop of corn to be grown by Harris on the farm belonging to Earl Keich. We do not think this description is void for uncertainty. This court has laid down the rule that a mortgage of personal property is sufficient as to description if it foe such that a disinterested person, aided only by such inquiry as the instrument itself suggests, is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Skillern v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  2. Johnson v. GrissardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
  3. Nelson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. Westmoreland Manganese Corp.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1955
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. HancockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  3. United States v. OakleyDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1980
  4. Zorub v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  5. Fisher v. Mikco Grain Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1966

3 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