Roark v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The mere fact that appellee paid off the debt to Wenzel, does not entitle him to subrogation, unless there was an agreement to that effect. 56 Ark. 480; 44 Id. 507; 47 Id. Ill; 25 Id. 129. The testimony fails to show this agreement, either express or implied.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The mere fact that appellee paid off the debt to Wenzel, does not entitle him to subrogation, unless there was an agreement to that effect. 56 Ark. 480; 44 Id. 507; 47 Id. Ill; 25 Id. 129. The testimony fails to show this agreement, either express or implied. The moving consideration for the loan was selling certain lots “and getting security for an old store account. 2. The fact that Matthews kept the old notes and mortgage is no evidence that he looked to the Wenzel notes and mortgage for subrogation. 50 Ark. 112; 44 Id.…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.. This suit was brought by appellants, who are husband and wife, to cancel a mortgage given by them upon their homestead to appellee upon the ground that the wife had not properly acknowledged the mortgage.
There was an answer and cross-complaint in which it was alleged that the mortgage had been properly executed, and in an amendment to the cross-complaint, it was alleged that prior to June 14, 1911, appellants were indebted to one Wenzel in the sum of $500.00, and as security therefor had executed a mortgage upon the premises mentioned in the complaint. That this mortgage had been…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Napoleon Hill Cotton Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Davies v. PughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ingram v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
- Shurn v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Teel v. HarndenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- State v. Estate of BaldwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929