Cross v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Clark Circuit Court in Chancery. R. D. Hearn, Judge. This was an action of ejectment. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in controversy under a commissioner’s deed, executed pursuant to a decree of the Pulaski Chancery Court against Barkman and Candler, foreclosing the State’s lien for the purchase money.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Clark Circuit Court in Chancery. R. D. Hearn, Judge. This was an action of ejectment. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in controversy under a commissioner’s deed, executed pursuant to a decree of the Pulaski Chancery Court against Barkman and Candler, foreclosing the State’s lien for the purchase money. It appears that the land was sold by the Common School Commissioner and purchased by Bark-man, who gave his note for the purchase money, with Candler -as surety. In i860 a patent was executed to Barkman, reciting the payment of the purchase money. Barkman having died…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
Warning Order. The record of the cause in which the decree relied upon as the foundation of the appellant’s title, was rendered, shows that it was based upon a warning order which does not state material facts required by the statute, and that proof of its publication is fatally defective. The decree was therefore void. Affirm.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Clay v. BilbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- North Little Rock v. RoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Gallagher v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Hot Springs v. CurrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Reeves v. CongerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.