Crismon v. Kingman Plow Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
AjJpeal from Randolph Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; The burden of proof is on the party alleging that a deed which is absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage, and such proof must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, some jurisdictions even going to the length of holding that it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. 88 Ark. 299; 27 Cyc. 1025b; 187 Mo. 46; 45 Mich. 533; 61 N. Y. App.
Read the full summary
AjJpeal from Randolph Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; The burden of proof is on the party alleging that a deed which is absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage, and such proof must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, some jurisdictions even going to the length of holding that it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. 88 Ark. 299; 27 Cyc. 1025b; 187 Mo. 46; 45 Mich. 533; 61 N. Y. App. Div. 315. Under the evidence the deed to appellee, coupled with the stipulation to reconvey, or allow appellant to redeem within one year, constituted, not a mortgage, but rather a…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
On June 27, 1911, the Ripley County Bank, a Missouri corporation, filed suit in the chancery court of Randolph County, making J. A. Crismon and Maggie Crismon, his wife, and the Kingman Plow Company, and others defendants. The suit was to enforce the lien of a certain mortgage on property situate and being at Maynard, Arkansas. There was no controversy over the bank’s right to foreclose its mortgage, but the real litigation grew out of the answer of the plow company and its cross complaint against its codefendants, Crismon and his wife. It was there alleged that a certain deed to the property…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dicken v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Maners v. WalshSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929