Griesler v. McKennon
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court. Hon. M. L. Davis, Special Judge. The court erred in excluding from the jury the title bond and assignment, after proof of actual notice to appellee. While the acknowledgment is defective it is cured by acts 188S, pp. 107 and 188-9. But after proof of actual notice and of its execution, the documents were admissible without acknowledgment or record. Appellee was in no sense an innocent purchaser.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court. Hon. M. L. Davis, Special Judge. The court erred in excluding from the jury the title bond and assignment, after proof of actual notice to appellee. While the acknowledgment is defective it is cured by acts 188S, pp. 107 and 188-9. But after proof of actual notice and of its execution, the documents were admissible without acknowledgment or record. Appellee was in no sense an innocent purchaser. The bond for title and assignment passed title without acknowledgment. Ilf. Ark., 886. The title bond and assignment properly excluded. The acknowledgment was…
1Opinion of the Court
C. B. Moore, Sp. J.
On the twenty-ninth of October, 1883, E. R. McKennon brought suit in ejectment in the Johnson Circuit Court, against Mary E. Griesler and her husband George Griesler, for the recovery of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section- twenty, in township nine north, of range twenty-four west.
A& evidence of his title McKennon filed with his complaint a copy of a deed of convejmnce to the land, executed to him by K. T. Stovall, dated March 4, 1882, duly acknowledged and recorded on the seventh day of April, 1882. The defendants answered the complaint, denying…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sadler v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Sharp v. LancasterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Wood v. Freeman-Smith Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Eaton v. LangleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898