Ward v. Blythe
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cross Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor. When no objection is made to evidence, the complaint must he considered as amended to conform to it. 29 Ark. 323; 40 Ark. 352. A stipulation in a deed of trust that the contract'shall be governed by the laws of some particular State is binding on the parties thereto, although executed in another State. 64 Ark. 39; 34 Miss. 181; 62 lb.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cross Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor. When no objection is made to evidence, the complaint must he considered as amended to conform to it. 29 Ark. 323; 40 Ark. 352. A stipulation in a deed of trust that the contract'shall be governed by the laws of some particular State is binding on the parties thereto, although executed in another State. 64 Ark. 39; 34 Miss. 181; 62 lb. R. A. 45. Only the maker, his vendees, assigns or creditors, can plead usury. 66 Ark. 125.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
T. S. Blythe borrowed of H. C. Grigger $1,500, and in consideration thereof executed to him his note for $1,725 and ten per cent, per annum interest from maturity, the note being dated January 11, 1902, at Smit'hdale, Arkansas, and payable one year after date at the First National Bank of Memphis, Tennessee. Blythe and his wife, Fannie M. Blythe, conveyed certain lands in the State of Arkansas to Joe Ward in trust to secure the payment of the note. In the deed of trust it was stipulated: “This contract embodied in this conveyance and the note secured hereby shall in all other respects be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cribbs v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Lanier v. Union Mortgage, Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Pembroke v. LoganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
3Cited by3 opinions
- McDougall v. HachmeisterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Hill v. ImbodenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Cotton v. Mutual Aid UnionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918