Taylor v. King
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lafayette Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; 1. Appellee is a lawyer while appellants are ignorant negroes and were clients of his. They employed him in a suit, and he obtained their signatures to the deed to the lands through fraud and fraudulent representations. 73 Ark. 575. The evidence shows fraud and that there was no consideration for the deeds. 2. The foreclosure decree is void because no service was ever had upon Maggie Nesbit and Ellen Modest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; 1. Appellee is a lawyer while appellants are ignorant negroes and were clients of his. They employed him in a suit, and he obtained their signatures to the deed to the lands through fraud and fraudulent representations. 73 Ark. 575. The evidence shows fraud and that there was no consideration for the deeds. 2. The foreclosure decree is void because no service was ever had upon Maggie Nesbit and Ellen Modest. Kirby’s Digest, § 6053. The records show no service. Z$. § 6264. 1. The decree is correct. No fraud was proven. No such…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the' facts). (1) The decision of the chancellor was correct. In the first place, it may be said that the issues sought to be raised in this suit might have been litigated and decided in the suit to foreclose the vendor’s lien on the land in controversy which was brought against these same defendants. The rule has been often announced in this court that the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction operates as a bar to all defenses, either legal or equitable, which were interposed or which could have been interposed in the former suit. Church v. Gallic, 76…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pulaski County v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Cassady v. NorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Morgan v. KendrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Crittenden Lumber Co. v. McDougalSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Church v. GallicSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Taylor v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Gosnell Special School District No. 6 v. BaggettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Olmstead v. Rosedale Building & SupplySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
- Shaw v. PolkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Morris & Co. v. Alexander & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.