Legal Opinion

Hood v. Young

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 26, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancellor was wrong. The testimony of J. M. Young and J. "W. Young, to the effect that E. W. Hood came into their office and told them, in the presence of Reginald Lane, that he was going to assume the payment of the mortgage indebtedness when he purchased the property from Lane, does not entitle Young to recover against Hood the amount of the mortgage indebtedness. Suppose it to be true that Hood did tell Young that he was about to purchase the property from Lane and would assume the mortgage indebtedness, he evidently after-wards…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wilson v. NugentSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  2. Agnes Prestidge v. W.R. PrestidgeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
  3. Young v. Blocker, TrusteeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API