Legal Opinion

Hall v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 5, 1927PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancery court was correct. A proper acknowledgment is an essential part of the execution of a conveyance of land, and it is competent for the grantor to show the falsity of a, certificate of acknowledgment. Where the grantor does not acknowledge the deed and the officer makes a certificate that the grantor did appear, the act of the officer is without authority of law, and void. No one can claim that an estate in land can be divested by forgery, and every one must be subject to the risk of forg’ery by officers authorized to take…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Green v. AbrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
  2. Johnson v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
  3. Miles v. JerrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  4. Ferrell v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  5. Wilson v. BilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Simpson v. TeftlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  2. General Electric Credit Corp. v. Bankers Commercial Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  3. Lynn v. QuillenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  4. Williams v. WarrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  5. Schwarz v. Colonial Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API