Lambright v. Bales
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sevier Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. Appellant clearly had the right to redeem, as the mortgage was not foreclosed in chancery court. Acts 1889, p. 280; Kirby’s Digest, § 5420. Prior to this act Kirby’s Digest, section 5416, was the only authority for sales under mortgages, and the act of 1899 did not interfere with the act of 1879 as amended in 1883, but undertook to provide for waiver of redemption.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sevier Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. Appellant clearly had the right to redeem, as the mortgage was not foreclosed in chancery court. Acts 1889, p. 280; Kirby’s Digest, § 5420. Prior to this act Kirby’s Digest, section 5416, was the only authority for sales under mortgages, and the act of 1899 did not interfere with the act of 1879 as amended in 1883, but undertook to provide for waiver of redemption. The act of 1899 takes nothing from the law as it stood and adds nothing thereto unless it be the rate of interest required by act of 1879 fixing an arbitrary rate…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This action was begun by the appellant against the appellees on November 21, 1917, in the chancery court of Sevier County, Arkansas, to redeem a certain tract of land in Sevier County which was sold on November 30, 1916, by foreclosure proceedings not in the chancery court but under the power contained in the mortgage.
The complaint alleged that the foreclosure was void but this allegation was abandoned, as the appellant did not follow it up with a prayer to set aside the sale nor with any proof to the effect that the conditions of the mortgage had been complied with by him.
The land was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Danenhauer v. DawsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Wood v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Martin v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Wood v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Dailey v. AbbottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Van Heest v. VeechNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
- Barbarise v. Overlook Hospital Assn.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
- Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
- Reilly v. OzzardSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Tocci v. Tessler & Weiss, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959