Sturdivant v. McCorley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. As to the debt, no time having been agreed on by the parties, it became at once due. No demand was necessary to entitle the party to his right of action. 24 Ark. 230. The debt was barred, and the mortgage, treating the deed as a mortgage, was also barred.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. As to the debt, no time having been agreed on by the parties, it became at once due. No demand was necessary to entitle the party to his right of action. 24 Ark. 230. The debt was barred, and the mortgage, treating the deed as a mortgage, was also barred. Kirby’s Digest, § 5399; 64 Ark. 305. The burden is upon appellant to show that the statute of limitations has not run. 6 Ark. 381; 21 Ark. 379; 27 Ark. 343; Id. 500; 53 Ark. 96; 04 Ark. 26; 93 S. W. 978. 2. Appellee should be held to be barred under the doctrine of laches.…
1Opinion
on rehearing.
Opinion delivered July 8, 1907.
2Per curiam
On motion for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that by the adverse possession in the case of Sturdivant v. Cook, 81 Ark. 279, the estate of J. S. Sturdivant lost one-half of the land conveyed by W. A. J. Sturdivant to his father to secure the debt, one-fifth of which is sued for by Mrs. McCorley in this case. We held in the former opinion that the judgment of Mrs. McCorley in this case could only be enforced against one-fifth interest in the land held by the estate of J. S. Sturdivant which it received from W. A. J. Sturdivant to secure…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Sturdivant v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906