Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Layson Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Polk Chancery Court; Tames D. Shaver,■ Chancellor ; 1. The mere fact that the deed from Eubanks to Parker, (if executed), was not on record, and that Parker was not found, did not-authorize the admission of secondary evidence as to its contents. 2. Eubanks not being found in the county, a notice was posted on the lot, and a summons published in a paper as required by 'statute. Even if Parker was the owner of the lot, this is good service.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Chancery Court; Tames D. Shaver,■ Chancellor ; 1. The mere fact that the deed from Eubanks to Parker, (if executed), was not on record, and that Parker was not found, did not-authorize the admission of secondary evidence as to its contents. 2. Eubanks not being found in the county, a notice was posted on the lot, and a summons published in a paper as required by 'statute. Even if Parker was the owner of the lot, this is good service. This proceeding being substantially an action in rem, personal service upon the real owner is not indispensable. Greenstreet v. Thornton, 60…
1Opinion of the CourtBattee, J.
The Eayson Lumber Company brought this suit against the Farmers & Merchants Bank,, in the Polk Chancery Court, to set aside a decree under which lot .No. 6 in block No. 53 in the city of Mena, in this State, had been sold to pay certain delinquent assessments due to Improvement District No. 1, in said city, and to cancel a deed executed to the Farmers & Merchants Bank, the purchasers at the sale.
An assessment was made by the city council of Mena upon lot No. 6 in block 53 and the other lots in the district for the purpose of constructing certain public improvements. The assessment due the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Greenstreet v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
3Cited by3 opinions
- Simpson v. ReinmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Laflin v. DrakeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- Simpson v. ReinmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920