Cravens & Boren v. Barr
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. There was no stipulation that the mortgagor should retain .possession of the property, and the mortgagee had the legal title and the right to' possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. There was no stipulation that the mortgagor should retain .possession of the property, and the mortgagee had the legal title and the right to' possession. Kirby’s Digest, §. 5410; 70 Cyc. 6; 18 Ark. 166. 2. There was no new consideration for the agreement to extend the time to pay the debt, and there was no such agreement. 80 Ark. 431. 3. It was error to give No. 5 for defendants and to refuse Nos. 10 and 11 for plaintiffs. 39 Ark. 248. Plaintiffs had no landlord’s…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellants were plaintiffs in the suit below, which was begun as an action in replevin to recover possession of two mules upon which they had a mortgage, possession being sought for the purpose of foreclosing that instrument. The suit was begun on the 23d of February, 1915, and the trial below was had-July 24, 1915.
In his answer appellee alleged that there had been an agreement for an extention of the mortgage to October 15, 1915, and that ¡subsequent to this agreement he liad sustained damages as a result of its breach, which more than equaled the balance due by him under his mortgage. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Meyer v. BloomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richardson v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934