Waddell v. Carlock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Yell Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. Geo. S. Cunningham, Judge of the Circuit Court. Though the debt was barred, the lien was not. 28 Ark., .27; 35 lb., 68; 29 lb., 358; 14 Ark., 634; 25 Ark., 281-2. While the note here is not precisely a mort.gage, it is in the nature of a mortgage as between the parties.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Yell Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. Geo. S. Cunningham, Judge of the Circuit Court. Though the debt was barred, the lien was not. 28 Ark., .27; 35 lb., 68; 29 lb., 358; 14 Ark., 634; 25 Ark., 281-2. While the note here is not precisely a mort.gage, it is in the nature of a mortgage as between the parties. It is not simply a vendor’s lien created by equity, but is an-express legal lien created by contract. 37 Ark., 315,. 316, 317; 3 Otto, p. 199-, 36 Ark., 111. An equitable vendor’s lien cannot be enforced after the-statute bar has attached to the debt. Linthicum v. Tappscott, 28…
1Opinion of the CourtEaicin, J.
Seth J. Waddell, in his lifetime, sold lands-by parol contract in Yell county to W. H. Carlock, put him in possession and received some property for part payment.
Afterwards, Seth J. Waddell died, and his administrator, to carry the contract into effect, on the thirteenth of July, 1874, conveyed the lands to Carlock by warranty deed, for the expressed consideration of six hundred dollars, which was recited to have been paid. A part of it,, however, remained due, for which Oarlock on the first day day of March, 1877, executed his note to the administrator, J. N. Waddell, for the sum of $333,20,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Percy v. CockrillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Davis v. CramerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Priddy & Chambers v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Powers v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.