Deisch v. Moore
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; Bdward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale under the powers contained in the deed of trust is entitled to the possession of the land during the year allowed by law for the redemption, and also to the rents and profits arising from same during that period. 66 Ark. 572; 65 Ark. 129; 92 Ark. 315. 2. The agreement executed by Peter Deisch does not have the effect to take this case out the rule above stated,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court; Bdward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale under the powers contained in the deed of trust is entitled to the possession of the land during the year allowed by law for the redemption, and also to the rents and profits arising from same during that period. 66 Ark. 572; 65 Ark. 129; 92 Ark. 315. 2. The agreement executed by Peter Deisch does not have the effect to take this case out the rule above stated, because (a) there is no consideration for its execution expressed therein, nor shown in evidence aliunde; (b) it was an…
1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.
This suit was brought by appellants to collect $440.50 claimed to be due for rent of certain lands in Phillips County described in the complaint.
It was alleged that they became the owners of the lands on 31st day of May, 1909, having purchased them at the trustee’s sale under a deed of trust executed by Robert and Eugenia Bentley to secure an indebtedness to Peter Mengoz; that appellees, Eugenia Bentley and Moore Bros., with full knowledge of their title and rights, received various amounts of cotton from tenants on said lands upon which appellant claimed a lien for rent for the year 1909,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tallman v. HeuckSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Brickey v. CotterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Wells (In re Wells)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2015