State v. Barnett
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court. Bichard H. Powell, Judge. The mortgage was good between the parties, without filing or recording, and the statute, making it an offence to remove mortgaged property, does not require the lien to be recorded. Hence the filing was not necessary.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court. Bichard H. Powell, Judge. The mortgage was good between the parties, without filing or recording, and the statute, making it an offence to remove mortgaged property, does not require the lien to be recorded. Hence the filing was not necessary. Sand. & H. Dig, .§ 1868; 49 Ark. 85; 54 Ark. 184; 9 Ark. 112; 18 Ark. 105. If filing-had been necessary, the signing of the memorandum by the initials of the mortgagee was a sufficient compliance with the statute. Sand. & H. Dig., § 5102; 40 Ark.431, 433; 9 Allen, 474; 14 How. (U. S.) 446; 1 Pet. 640; 131 Pa. St.…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
This is an indictment for removing mortgaged property, and (omitting formal parts) it reads as follows: “The said J S Barnett, on the 1st day of November, 1896, in the county and state aforesaid, then and there unlawfully, and with the intent to cheat and defraud one R C. Dorr, did remove beyond the limits of said county one sorrel mare, of the value of fifty dollars, upon which the said R. C. Dorr then and there had a lien by virtue of a certain mortgage with power of sale, which mortgage was duly executed and acknowledged by said J. S. Barnett on the 6th day of March, 1896, and delivered to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hampton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- McClaskey v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976