Lewis v. Muense
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; Northern District; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The deed was a mortgage to secure a debt and appellant had the right to redeem. Kirby’s Digest, § 5420; 106 Ark. 79; 27 Cyc. 957; 4 Kent Com. 133; 4 N. J. L. 300-310; 4 Den. (N. Y.) 493-5; 127 Pa. St. 348; 113 IT. S. 659; 9 Wis. 503; 7 Yt. 170; 1 Pet.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; Northern District; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The deed was a mortgage to secure a debt and appellant had the right to redeem. Kirby’s Digest, § 5420; 106 Ark. 79; 27 Cyc. 957; 4 Kent Com. 133; 4 N. J. L. 300-310; 4 Den. (N. Y.) 493-5; 127 Pa. St. 348; 113 IT. S. 659; 9 Wis. 503; 7 Yt. 170; 1 Pet. (U. S.) 386; 26 Ark. 72; 27 Cyc. 968; Jones on Mortg. § 16. 2.This was an equitable mortgage. 91 Md. 613; 15 Ala. 472; 59 Conn. 170; 91 Ala, 569; 18 Id. 42; 27 Miss. 461; 4 Part (Ala.) 374; 13 Ark. 533; 51 Id. 433; 66 Id. 333; 33 Id. 237. A deed absolute,…
1Opinion of the CourtCuino ch, C. J.
Appellant was the owner of certain real estate in Arkansas county, and conveyed it to appellee Muense by deed absolute in form with covenants of warranty. It is conceded, however, that appellant was indebted to Muense in a certain sum and that the deed was intended by both parties as a security for said debt. Muense sued appellant in the chancery court of Arkansas County, setting forth the fact that the conveyanee in controversy was intended by the parties as a mortgage and prayed for a foreclosure, and the court rendered a final decree ordering the lands sold to satisfy the said…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sturdivant v. McCorleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Priddy & Chambers v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Tate v. DinsmoreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by1 opinion
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. v. SpurgeonTennessee Supreme Court · 1939