Legal Opinion · Dissent

Adams v. Spillyards

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 19, 1933No. 4-3087Published

1Dissent

I cannot agree with the majority, either in holding that the act has no application to future contracts, or in holding that the act is unconstitutional as to existing contracts.

The one statement in the majority opinion, however, to which we may all agree is the following: "The evident purpose of the Legislature was to relieve a present condition by applying the poultice of the act to the sore spot of deficiency judgments in foreclosures of mortgages caused by decline in realty values."

While the decline in realty values was partly the cause of the sore spot, it was not the whole cause. It is a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La FetraNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. OshkoshSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. National Surety Co. v. Architectural Decorating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Wright v. WimberlyOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  5. New Orleans City & Lake Railroad v. Louisiana, Ex Rel. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1895

4 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