Gill v. Hardin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court, in Chancery. Hon. G. S. Cunningham, Judge. The doctrine, it seems to me, is too well settled that a deed, absolute on its face, may be shown to be a mortgage to make it necessary to cite authorities. The rule is,, the fact that a deed is given as a security determines its character.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Conway Circuit Court, in Chancery. Hon. G. S. Cunningham, Judge. The doctrine, it seems to me, is too well settled that a deed, absolute on its face, may be shown to be a mortgage to make it necessary to cite authorities. The rule is,, the fact that a deed is given as a security determines its character. Hilliard on Mort., vol. 1, pp. 49, 66; 5 Ark., 321 ; 7 ib., 505; 13 ib., 112; 15 ib., 284.; 18 ib., 49; 40 ib., 146. The facts in evidence establish beyond a doubt that the deed from Gill to Hardin was only a security to Moore and Crowell. And the lands can only be sold at public…
1Opinion of the CourtCookrill, C. J.
The appellant, Gill, was indebted to one Moore, and desiring to secure the payment of the debt, agreed to» execute a mortgage to him upon real estate in the town of Morrilton for that purpose. The land at that time was encumbered by mortgage and judgment liens, and after negotiations between the parties these liens were paid off by Moore and a Ur. Crowell, another of Gill’s creditors, who was also to be protected by the mortgage, and Gill then executed a deed, absolute in form, to the appellee, Hardin, under a parol agreement that Hardin should ■sell the land, and out of the proceeds…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ferguson v. GuydonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Keylon v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- Fagan v. Stuttgart Normal InstituteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Havel v. CostelloSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Graff v. Lena Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.