Arkansas Cypress Shingle Co. v. Meto Valley Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Eonake Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; statement by the court. J. A. Watkins was appointed receiver by the Eonoke Chancery Count to take charge of the assets of the Meto Valley Railway Company, an insolvent corporation, f-o-r the purpose of distributing these assets among the creditors of such -corporation under the provisions of sections 949 to- 952, inclusive, of Kinby’s Digest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Eonake Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; statement by the court. J. A. Watkins was appointed receiver by the Eonoke Chancery Count to take charge of the assets of the Meto Valley Railway Company, an insolvent corporation, f-o-r the purpose of distributing these assets among the creditors of such -corporation under the provisions of sections 949 to- 952, inclusive, of Kinby’s Digest. Among the assets placed in the hands of the receiver was an engine and tender which the appellant had sold the railway company before the company was placed in the hands of the receiver.…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). In Martin v. Schichtl, 60 Ark. 595, 598, we said: “Equity requires no particular words to be used in creating a lien. It looks through the form to the substance of an agreement, and if, from the instrument evidencing the agreement, the intent appears to give, or to charge or to pledge, property, real or personal, as a security for an obligation, and the property is so described that the principal things intended to be given or charged can be sufficiently identified, the lien follows.” This language was recently quoted by the Chief Justice speaking for the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wood v. Holly Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Cox v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Ward v. StarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Martin v. SchichtlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Auten v. City Electric St. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1900
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rose City Bottling Works v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Martin v. Blytheville Water Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- In re T. H. Bunch Commission Co.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1915
- Sutton v. McClainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Baskin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.