Legal Opinion

Billingsley v. Pruitt

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 18, 1956No. 5-995PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtG-eoege Rose Smith, J.

This suit was brought by the appellant, Ida Billingsley, to foreclose a mortgage upon certain lots in Batesville. The cause of action is admittedly barred by limitations, but the original mortgagors did not interpose that defense. The statute was pleaded, however, by the principal appellee, W. F. Armstrong, and the only question in the case is whether Armstrong is entitled to rely upon the defense of limitations. The chancellor upheld Armstrong’s plea, dismissed the complaint as far as the land is concerned, and limited the plaintiff to a personal judgment against the mortgagors.

These are the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McFaddin v. BellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  2. Clark v. LesserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  3. Bank of Mulberry v. SpragueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. National Surety Corporation v. Inland Properties, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1968
  2. Karnes v. MarrowSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  3. Bank of New York v. University Partners, Ltd.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1989
  4. Karnes v. MarrowSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API