Clark v. Roots
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulashi Cbaucery Court. X). W. Carroll, Chancellor. The sole defence to this suit is that Clark did know, or should have known, that the G-odbold tract should be-excepted out of the deed, because Godbold was in possession and his deed on record, and Clark was bound to-take notice. This is not the law. Bispt.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulashi Cbaucery Court. X). W. Carroll, Chancellor. The sole defence to this suit is that Clark did know, or should have known, that the G-odbold tract should be-excepted out of the deed, because Godbold was in possession and his deed on record, and Clark was bound to-take notice. This is not the law. Bispt. Fq.; see. 218. If Adams & Roots made a mistake in selling lands-they had no title to, even if Clark knew it, this is only ground to rescind the contract, not to reform it. Bawle-Cov. for Title, 128-9; Bispt. Fq. sec. 191 and notes. If there was any mistake at all, it was…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
In January 1883, Mr. Clark sold his plantation to John I). Adams, and took in part payment the Mask place, supposed to contain forty-five acres, at the price of $4,500. Mask had at one time owned sixty acres; but as long ago as 1875 he had sold fifteen acres of the tract to ‘Gfodbold, who thenceforward was in actual possession •under a recorded deed. After this last mentioned sale the forty-five acres which Mask retained were known in the neighborhood as the Mask place; and the fifteen acres which had been sold off went by the name of the G-odbold land. In 1876 Mask executed a deed of trust…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Stedwell v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1851
- Chester Emery Co. v. LucasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Wilcox v. LucasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Commonwealth Building & Loan Ass'n v. WingoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934