Thompson v. Buchanan
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sharp Chancery Court, Southern District; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor; 1. The complaint does not allege that Sharp County had any lien on the lands. 50 Ark. 361. 2. The money paid satisfied only a part of the judgment. Appellee must show full satisfaction and discharge of the lien before he is entitled to subrogation. 50 Ark. 361; 90 Id. 51; 96 Id. 594; 76 Id. 245; 34 Id. 113. 3. Sharp County was not made a party to the suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sharp Chancery Court, Southern District; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor; 1. The complaint does not allege that Sharp County had any lien on the lands. 50 Ark. 361. 2. The money paid satisfied only a part of the judgment. Appellee must show full satisfaction and discharge of the lien before he is entitled to subrogation. 50 Ark. 361; 90 Id. 51; 96 Id. 594; 76 Id. 245; 34 Id. 113. 3. Sharp County was not made a party to the suit. Appellee did not allege that he bought the land in good faith, believing he would get a good title. He knew that the execution and sale were void at the…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). It was shown that the county obtained judgment against the appellant in the sum of $2,653.18. The appellant contends that the appellee was not entitled to subrogation until he had shown that he had fully satisfied the judgment in favor of the county against appellant, citing a line of cases which hold that a surety or one originally liable for the debt, a portion of which he has paid, can not be subrogated for the. amounts so paid to the rights of the creditor unless the debt has been fully paid.
But the above doctrine can have no application to the facts of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cowling v. BrittSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. BeardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930