Standley v. Mason
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court, Eastern District; B. F. McMahan, Chancellor; The demurrer of appelleees admitted the allegations of the complaint. 104 Ark. 466. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court, Eastern District; B. F. McMahan, Chancellor; The demurrer of appelleees admitted the allegations of the complaint. 104 Ark. 466. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The effect of the contract alleged was to create a mortgage on the lands in favor of the vendor, Mason. 13 Ark. 533; 15 Id. 188; 16 Id. 126; 27 Id. 61; 29 Id. 357; 34 Id. 113; 66 Id. 167; 84 Id. 160; 100 Id. 543. The relationship between appellant and James W. Mason was that of mortgagor and mortgagee, and Mason prosecuted one of the remedies given by law (13…
1Opinion of the Court
McCulloch:, C. J.
The land in controversy was originally owned by appellee Mason, who entered into a written contract to sell the same to appellant Standley on the terms specified in detail in the contract. There was a default in the payment of the purchase price, and appellee sued in the chancery court to foreclose his lien. There was a decree foreclosing the lien, and the prop-, erty was sold thereunder.
This is an action instituted by appellant to compel appellee to allow a redemption of the property, the right to which is claimed under a statute which provides that where land is sold under…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Priddy & Chambers v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Bothe v. GleasonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States Plywood Corp. v. AlexanderOregon Supreme Court · 1946