Watters v. Wagley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Newton Circuit Court in Chancery. R. H. Powell, Judge. 1. The Crawfords are estopped by their acts and declarations. 10 Ark., 211; 18 Ark., 142; 24 Ark., 371; 33 Ark., 465. 2. Angia Crawford never did have any legal title. She mortgaged the land back to Tennyson at the same time she acquired title, and the legal title remained in Tennyson. 43 Ark., 504. 3. Appellee lost any rights he may have had by failure to record his mortgage. Mansf.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Newton Circuit Court in Chancery. R. H. Powell, Judge. 1. The Crawfords are estopped by their acts and declarations. 10 Ark., 211; 18 Ark., 142; 24 Ark., 371; 33 Ark., 465. 2. Angia Crawford never did have any legal title. She mortgaged the land back to Tennyson at the same time she acquired title, and the legal title remained in Tennyson. 43 Ark., 504. 3. Appellee lost any rights he may have had by failure to record his mortgage. Mansf. Dig., sec. 4743! 9 Ark., x 12; 40 Ark., $36; 33 Ark., 203. The destruction of a deed does not reconvey title. 21 Ark., 80; 33 Ark., 63; 42 Ark.,…
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
Allen Tennison and his wife, Nancy, conveyed a tract of land that belonged to Mrs. Tennison to Angia Crawford, a married woman, who, with her husband, L. D. Crawford, mortgaged part of the same land to Tennison and his wife to secure a balance of one hundred and seventy-five dollars of the purchase money. About the first of April, 1886, Tennison and his wife assigned the mortgage to J. C. Wagley, the appellee, who brought suit to foreclose the same. After the assignment of the mortgage to appellee, appellant Watters bought the land mortgaged from Angia Crawford, and, on the 13th of November,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Foster v. ElledgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Ames v. AmesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Mauldin v. HowellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947