Hardin v. Hooks
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clay Chancery Court. Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor. Appellee had no lien, and was not subrogated to the vendor’s lien. 44 Ark. 504; 25 Ark. 129. The lien, if it ever existed, had been waived and abandoned, and the giving of the new note could not revive it. 2 Jones, Eiens, 1098; 4 Ball. L. Real P. 871; 25 Ark. 515; 55 Ark. 542; 51 Ark. 285; 46 Ark. 270 ; 33 Ark. 240; Tied. R. P. 293; 3 Pom. Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Chancery Court. Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor. Appellee had no lien, and was not subrogated to the vendor’s lien. 44 Ark. 504; 25 Ark. 129. The lien, if it ever existed, had been waived and abandoned, and the giving of the new note could not revive it. 2 Jones, Eiens, 1098; 4 Ball. L. Real P. 871; 25 Ark. 515; 55 Ark. 542; 51 Ark. 285; 46 Ark. 270 ; 33 Ark. 240; Tied. R. P. 293; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. 1252; 94 Ala. 536; 99 Ala. 616. Appellee was estopped by his silence and conduct. 21 Ark. 202; 29 Ark. 218; 35 Ark. 293, 376; 33 Ark. 465; 37 Ark. 47; 38 Ark. 571; 39 Ark. 131;…
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
Appellee, J. A. Hooks, began an action in the Clay chancery court for the Eastern district on the 25th day of February, 1901, against the appellants O. A. Gatewood and Annie Gatewood, alleging that he at their special instance had purchased for the appellant O. A. Gatewood the following lands lying in the Eastern district of Clay county: north part of northeast quarter of southwest quarter of section 2, township 19 north, 'range 7 east, and containing- thirty acres; that at the time of the purchase he executed his note to the vendor of said lands for the purchase money; that afterwards the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hecht v. SpearsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Soukup v. WenischSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Hughes v. Sebastian County BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Lowrey v. LowreySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971