Everton v. Day
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court. Thomas B. Martin, Chancellor. The debt being barred, the deed of trust is also barred. Act March 25, 1898; 61 Ark. 115. The injunction prohibiting the sale did not prevent the commencement of an action for the debt, and hence did not stop the statute. 14 Ark. 496; 2 Am. & Eng. Ch. Cas. 587. To toll the statute, the exception must come strictly within those enumerated m the statute. 13 Am. & Eng. Enc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court. Thomas B. Martin, Chancellor. The debt being barred, the deed of trust is also barred. Act March 25, 1898; 61 Ark. 115. The injunction prohibiting the sale did not prevent the commencement of an action for the debt, and hence did not stop the statute. 14 Ark. 496; 2 Am. & Eng. Ch. Cas. 587. To toll the statute, the exception must come strictly within those enumerated m the statute. 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 731, § 5, note; Angelí, Lim. 196, note 3. Bringing the suit for injunction against appellees did not interrupt the statute. 42 S. W. 534; S. C. 64 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 28th of February, 1888, B. F. Ever-ton was indebted to Day, Horton & Bailey, on account, in a large sum of money; how much, they did not know, but estimated it at the sum of $1,000. Everton and his wife executed a note for this amount, due and payable on the 1st of October, 1888, in settlement of so much of such indebtedness; and Day, Horton & Bailey agreed to advance to him until the first day of April, 1889, goods, wares and merchandise not exceeding, at prices sold, the aggregate sum of $20,000: and, to secure the payment of the promissory note and the amount that would be due for…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rich v. HankinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942