Madden v. Suddarth
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Little River Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. The deed relied on by appellee did not retain a lien on the land, nor contain facts sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser on notice that a part of the purchase price remained unpaid.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Little River Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. The deed relied on by appellee did not retain a lien on the land, nor contain facts sufficient to put a subsequent purchaser on notice that a part of the purchase price remained unpaid. Where the granting and habendum clauses in a deed are irreconcilable, the habendum clause must yield to the granting clause. 92 Ark. 324. 2. A purchaser of land is not bound to take notice of a vendor’s lien unless the balance of the purchase money is recited in the deed and expressly made a lien in such deed. 28 S. E. 336; 95 Va. 263. If…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellee owned a certain tract of land in Little River County, and on March 9,1918, sold and conveyed the same to Nora Barton for the price of $500, of which $150 was paid in cash, and said grantee executed to appellee her promissory note of that date for the remaining sum of $350, due and payable one year after date. The deed of conveyance executed by appellee and his wife to Nora Barton reads, in part, as follows:
‘ ‘ Know All Men by These Presents:
“That we, James L. Suddarth and Elizabeth Suddarth, his wife, for and in consideration of the sum of .............................dollars, paid…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lay v. GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by5 opinions
- Levinson v. TreadwaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Federal Land Bk. of St. Louis v. MillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- McLaughlin v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Flannagan v. Citizens' State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922