Ringo v. Woodruff
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. John R. Eakin, Chancellor. At common law, in the English and Federal courts and a majority of the States including Arkansas, a mortgage is regarded as a conveyance in fee, the legal tide vesting in the mortgagee while the equity of redemption remains in the mortgagor. In many States, this has been changed by-statute or judicial construction until no title or estate passes to the mortgagee either at law or equity. 2 Wash.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. John R. Eakin, Chancellor. At common law, in the English and Federal courts and a majority of the States including Arkansas, a mortgage is regarded as a conveyance in fee, the legal tide vesting in the mortgagee while the equity of redemption remains in the mortgagor. In many States, this has been changed by-statute or judicial construction until no title or estate passes to the mortgagee either at law or equity. 2 Wash. JR. P., p. 104; 108 n 8. Where no title passes' the doctrine of adverse possession has no application as to foreclosure of a…
1Opinion of the Court
B. B. Battle, Special Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Pulaski Chancery Court.
Joel Ringo, as executor of the last will and testament of Daniel RiDgo, deceased, the plaintiff in the court below, filed his complaint in that court, on the first day of August, 1877, in which he charges that William E. Woodruff, sen., executed to Daniel Ringo, in his life time, on the 20th day of January, 1843, a mortgage upon the following lands in Pulaski county, in this State, to-wit: The south-east quarter of section eleven (11) and the north-west quarter of section thirteen (13) in township one…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Lessee of Ewing v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Kane v. BloodgoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Hughes v. EdwardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Zeller's Lessee v. EckertSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
- Jackson Ex Dem. Bradstreet v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Peart v. District of Columbia Housing AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Earle Improvement Co. v. ChatfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Worthley v. BurbanksIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Haggart v. RanneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Watson v. HardinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.