Crittenden Investment Co. v. Whitman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Osceola District; Chas. D. Frierson, Chancellor; I. The lands were not redeemed within the time allowed by law. If Act 262, Acts 1909, applies the time for redemption had expired, but if the Act 1915, passed eighty-four days after the sale applies the redemption is in time. The last act is not retroactive, and does not apply to sales prior to its passage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Osceola District; Chas. D. Frierson, Chancellor; I. The lands were not redeemed within the time allowed by law. If Act 262, Acts 1909, applies the time for redemption had expired, but if the Act 1915, passed eighty-four days after the sale applies the redemption is in time. The last act is not retroactive, and does not apply to sales prior to its passage. It can not affect vested rights. 86 Ark. 255; 8 Cyc. 940, note 56. The right to redeem depends on the statute in force at the time of sale. 51 Ark. 453; 99 Id. 324; 105 Ark. 40. 1. The land was…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). There appears in the transcript what purports to be a redemption certificate showing the date of redemption of one of the tracts of land in controversy in this case and on another page what purports to be a list of lands returned delinquent by the St. Francis Levee District. The lands in question are particularly described in those papers. In response' to a petition for certiorari by' appellees, the clerk certified that these pages of the transcript were not properly a part of the record on this appeal. There is nothing in the record tending to contradict…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bolgiano v. CookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Oliphant v. . BurnsNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Laidley v. JasperWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
- Sherrod v. Terrell, CommissionerTexas Supreme Court · 1903