Legal Opinion

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Rieff

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 19, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HaRT, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). No contention is made about the validity of the indebtedness of D. C. Horton, Inc., to H. F. Rieff, and no objection is made to the form of the mortgage to him. The mortgage to Reiff by D. C. Horton, Inc., was also prior in point of time to that executed on the same lots in favor of the Fidelity & Deposit 'Company of Maryland.

It is earnestly insisted, however, by the Fidelity & Deposit Company that the acknowledgment of the mortgage by D. 0. Horton, Inc., to Rieff vras not in conformity with the statute, and for lliat reason the mortgage to Rieff was not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cotton v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  2. Sibly v. EnglandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  3. Little v. DodgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Blocker v. SewellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  2. David Leonard Associates, P.C. v. Airport-81 Nursing Care, Inc. (In Re Airport-81 Nursing Care, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1983
  3. National Home Centers, Inc. v. First Arkansas Valley BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  4. Rives v. McGaugheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
  5. Yeager v. PowellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API