Sledge & Norfleet Co. v. Craig
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, -Chancellor; It is conceded that the deed would be invalid under the Acts 1887, Kirby’s Digest, § 3901, unless cured by subsequent acc of the Legislature.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, -Chancellor; It is conceded that the deed would be invalid under the Acts 1887, Kirby’s Digest, § 3901, unless cured by subsequent acc of the Legislature. The curative act of 1903, Kirby’s Digest, § § 783, 786, is sufficient for this purpose, and the deed conveys the homestead, the same not having been invalidated by any judicial proceeding, nor any suit instituted for that purpose, at the time the statute was enacted. 58 Ark. 117; 44 Ark. 365; 50 Ark. 294; S3 Ark. 57; 51 Ark. 419 ; 57 Ark. 242; 62 Ark. 431; Id. 160; Id. 320; Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloci-i, J.
During the month of March, 1900, Craig, Coston and Duffing, who were farmers residing in Crittenden County, Arkansas, jointly executed to Sledge & Norfleet Company of Memphis, Terinessee, a mortgage on certain crops, livestock, etc., and a forty-acre tract of land in that county which was owned by Craig and constituted his homestead. The tract is imperfectly described, but it is admitted in the pleadings that it was the intention of the parties to describe and convey the tract in controversy. This is a suit in chancery instituted by appellant, Sledge & Norfleet Company, to have the mortgage…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ward v. StarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Morris v. CoveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Mayfield v. SehonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Gantt v. HildrethSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Shurn v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.