Shaw v. Hill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Union Circuit Court in Equity. Hon. B. E. Askew, Circuit Judge. The clerk’s deed to appellee being void (Bagley v. Castile, Ark., 77), no rights accrued, and no protection is given at law to acts under it.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Union Circuit Court in Equity. Hon. B. E. Askew, Circuit Judge. The clerk’s deed to appellee being void (Bagley v. Castile, Ark., 77), no rights accrued, and no protection is given at law to acts under it. Cochran v. Cobb, land commissioner, J¡3 Ark., 180. Hence appellee was not entitled to any tender for value of any improvements, percentage, etc., provided in section 264.9, Mansfield’s Digest, as held in Douglas v. Flynn, 43 Ark., 399; 40 Ark., 443. And appellee’s holding over being a trespass and a transgression of the rules of right between man and man, and in fact an…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Some time about the latter part of 1879 plaintiff- George C. Shaw and others rented to the defendant, George W. Hill, the land in controversy for the year 1880, in consideration of his promise to pay the taxes assessed against the same for-the years 1878 and 1879, and a reasonable sum of money in addition thereto; and plaintiff- also agreed to deduct from the rent, and give to defendant credit for the value of such improvements as he should make upon the land during the year 1880. On or about the 1st day of January, 1880, he took possession under his contract to rent, and did some repairing…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tupy v. KocourekSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Ames v. WitbeckIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Reynolds v. FewelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912