Fink v. Ehrman Bros.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders Circuit Judge. The evidence shows that the appellant, immediately after the delivery of the trust deed, took possession and remained continually in possession until after the attachment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders Circuit Judge. The evidence shows that the appellant, immediately after the delivery of the trust deed, took possession and remained continually in possession until after the attachment. The employment of the mortgagor's clerk, or even the mortgagor himself, by the trustee, is not inconsistent with his possession, so that he accounts to the mortgagee for the proceeds, and has them applied to the extinguishment of the mortgage debt. 1 Dill., 462; 24 N. V., 359; 28 lb., 360; §2 lb., 293 ; 91 lb., 214; Dump Fraud. Gonv., p. 128; 2 Term. Gh.,…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Cockrill, C. J.
The mortgage assailed by the attaching creditors was regularly acknowledged and recorded, . and contains no provision which renders it void as a legal conclusion. Upon its face it is valid. The effort was to show by extrinsic evidence that it was a fraudulent device. It authorizéd the trustee to take immediate possession of the mortgaged stock, and sell it at retail to pay the secured debt. In point of fact there was no ostensible, change of possession. The business was carried on by the agent of the mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage, just as it had been…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brackett v. . HarveyNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Overman v. QuickU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re HawksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1913
- Noyes v. RossMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- In re ReynoldsDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1907
- Collins v. LightleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Wolf v. Erwin & Wood Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.