Legal Opinion

Bolden v. Grayson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 22, 1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is the settled doctrine of this court that, whether any particular transaction of the kind involved in this suit amounts to a mortgage, or to a sale with a contract to repurchase, must, to a large extent, depend upon its own facts and circumstances. The question turns upon the real intention of the parties as shown upon the face of the deed or as disclosed by extrinsic evidence. In all cases parol evidence may be introduced to show that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a mortgage; but the evidence must be clear, satisfactory and convincing.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matthews v. StevensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  2. Jefferson v. SouterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kerby v. FieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  2. Bailey v. FrankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  3. Deloney v. DillardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  4. Wilson v. MasonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API