Phillips v. Jones
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was instituted in the Jefferson Chancery Court on July 29, 1904, by Emily Phillips against W. D. Jones, and the purpose of the suit was to compel Jones to convey to Emily Phillips lot 1, block 10, Woodruff’s Addition to the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. This is the second appeal in this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was instituted in the Jefferson Chancery Court on July 29, 1904, by Emily Phillips against W. D. Jones, and the purpose of the suit was to compel Jones to convey to Emily Phillips lot 1, block 10, Woodruff’s Addition to the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion of the former trial is reported in 79 Ark. p. 100, styled “Phillips v. Jones.” There the court held that: “A bill for specific performance which alleges that plaintiff occupied and formerly…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts.) This is a suit to enforce the specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real estate, and not a suit to redeem from a mortgage. “Specific performance enforces a contract by giving a party something to which he had not title before. Redemption gives a party nothing new, but enforces his right to repurchase .his own, incumbered for a debt. Redemption restores the parties to their former rights of property. Specific performance gives them new rights to property.” Williams v. Williams, 50 Wis. 311-16, 6 N. W. 814.
Section 5420 of Kirby’s Digest, giving…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Moore v. GordonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Williams v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Tatum v. BoldingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Fielder v. WarnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. DumasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Newman v. KelloggSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937