Legal Opinion

Dillingham v. Kahn

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 5, 1934No. 4-3323PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The foregoing statement of facts demonstrates that appellee violated the terms and conditions of his bill of assurance, which was made a part and parcel of the deed from appellee to appellant conveying plot 23 in Prospect Terrace. The evidence on this point is too plain and certain to be ignored. In very plain language the bill of assurance provides: “No residences shall be erected on plot 1 to 39, inclusive * * *, the actual bona fide cost of which, exclusive of any outbuildings, shall be less than $10,000.” This language conveys what it means and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Snyder v. BridewellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  2. Smith v. Home Seekers Realty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Smith v. Home Seekers Realty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1929
  4. Laser v. ForbesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Moore v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  2. Rickman v. MobbsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
  3. Millwood Sanitation & Park Co., Inc. v. MattinglyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API