Merryman v. Blount
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The sale under the trust deed was void for two reasons: (a) The beneficiaries, unless there was a provision in the deed to that effect, could not purchase at a sale for their benefit. 32 Ill. 13; 8 Fed. Cases, 443; 4 Minn. 32; 58 Mo. 537; 107 N. C. 552; 9 R. I. 225; 23 Ark. 622; 52 Ill. 130; 49 Mo. 389; 76 N..
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The sale under the trust deed was void for two reasons: (a) The beneficiaries, unless there was a provision in the deed to that effect, could not purchase at a sale for their benefit. 32 Ill. 13; 8 Fed. Cases, 443; 4 Minn. 32; 58 Mo. 537; 107 N. C. 552; 9 R. I. 225; 23 Ark. 622; 52 Ill. 130; 49 Mo. 389; 76 N.. C. 99; 126 N. C.’ 525; 80 Miss. 31. There is no distinction between a mortgagee and the beneficiary in law. See cases supra; also 121 Ala. 191; 2 Perry, Trusts, 602 D; Jones on Mortg. (4 Ed.), § 1769; 40 Ch.…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This suit was begun by appellant to redeem a certain tract of land in St. Francis County from a sale made by a trustee under a deed of trust. The purchasers were the beneficiaries in the deed.
The complaint contains, among others, the following allegations :
“That the beneficiaries in said trust deed, L. and O. B. Roll-wage, bought the.land involved in this action at the sale made by the trustee, B. R. Shade, January 5, 1895, and there was no provision in the said instrument or agreement that they might become purchasers at their own sale, and that the said sale is for that cause void. That the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sims v. CumbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Hamilton v. RhodesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kosters v. HooverCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Modica v. CombsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- King v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914