Rushton v. McIllvene
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Columbia Chancery Court; Bmon O. Mahoney, Chancellor; No fraud is alleged or shown. A deed absolute on its face will not be construed as a mortgage, unless the evidence is clear and decisive that it was given and accepted as a mortgage. 19 Ark. 278; 31 Ark. 163; 40 Ark. 146; 75 Ark. 554.
1Opinion of the CourtBattue, J.
The question in this case is, was the deed executed by R. D. Emerson and his wife to A. Rushton, on the 9th day of December, 1905, whereby they conveyed to him block thirty in the town of Emerson, and covenanted with the grantee that they would forever warrant and defend the title thereto against all claims whatever, a mortgage? The trial court held that it was a mortgage, and Rushton appealed.
The block was sold by R. L. Emerson to J. M. Mclllvene on time. Emerson executed to Mclllvene a bond for title and bound himself to convey to Mclllvene when the purchase money was paid. Mclllvene, being…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hays v. EmersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Coyle v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Cadman v. PeterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Harman v. MaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Trieber v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Voris v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Worley, Receiver v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Newport v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Wimberly v. ScogginSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Clark-Mcwilliams Coal Co. v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.