Legal Opinion

Beard v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1889PublishedCited by 18 opinions

APPEAL from Lee Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. 1. There is no redemption from a purchase under a decree in chancery. The act of March 4, 1875, page 212, is void, because it is an attempt to make a new law by reference ■only. Const., art. 3, sec. 23; 4.9 Ark., 131. 2. But if the right exists, the existence of a mere right of redemption does not prevent the levy of an attachment or execution upon the interest of the purchaser.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from Lee Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. 1. There is no redemption from a purchase under a decree in chancery. The act of March 4, 1875, page 212, is void, because it is an attempt to make a new law by reference ■only. Const., art. 3, sec. 23; 4.9 Ark., 131. 2. But if the right exists, the existence of a mere right of redemption does not prevent the levy of an attachment or execution upon the interest of the purchaser. This precise question has not been decided by this court, but its decisions point favorably to our contention. 42 Ark., 303; 33 id., 222. See 31 Cal., 293-394; 36…

1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.( The appellee filed her complaint, claiming title to and right to possession of land described therein, and alleging that appellant, Beard, was in unlawful possession thereof. As evidence of title she exhibited with her complaint a deed for the land, executed to her on the 29th day of April, 1886, by a commissioner in chancery, who had sold the same under a decree in chancery, in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, against said Beard, in favor of the Wilson Sewing Machine Company, of Chicago, Ill., which company had purchased…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  2. Lockridge v. BaldwinTexas Supreme Court · 1857

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Farris v. WrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  2. Texarkana-Forest Park Paving, Water, Sewer and Gas District No. 1 v. State Use Miller County.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  3. Kenady v. GilkeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  4. Rider v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  5. Harvey v. DouglassSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API