Woods v. Hayes
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Marion Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys,. Chancellor; 1. The execution was a valid and binding lien on Hayes’s interest in the land . from the time it went into' the hands of the sheriff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys,. Chancellor; 1. The execution was a valid and binding lien on Hayes’s interest in the land . from the time it went into' the hands of the sheriff. Kirby’s Digest § 3227. The statutes, provide the time and place of sale of land under execution, and that the sale must be advertised by posting notices, etc., but they do not designate what the notice shall contain, nor that they shall contain an accurate description of the property. It follows, therefore, that a general description of the property is sufficient, provided it is sufficiently…
1Opinion of the Court
McCuleqci-i, J,.
This suit involves a controversy between the plaintiff, H. T. Buie, and the defendants,-S. W. Woods and wife, and the interveners, who are the heirs at law of E. L. Hayes, deceased, over the title to an undivided three-eighths interest in a tract of land in Marion County which had been located and patented as a mining claim, eách of said parties claiming title to said interest. Buie and Woods own the other undivided interest in the tract, as well, a.s another' tract with which it had been consolidated and patented as a mining claim,
Woods claims title to the interest in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Youngblood v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Files v. HarbisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1874
- Huffman v. GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wade v. DenistonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Knight v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932