Rose v. Million
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Randolph Chancery Court; L. F. Reeder, Chancellor; 1. There are two reasons why the decree should be reversed. (1) There was a complete satisfaction and discharge of the debt for which the mortgage' sought to be foreclosed was given. (2) No such loss or damage is shown as would entitle plaintiff to a foreclosure. There was a complete novation which discharged the Weeks debt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Randolph Chancery Court; L. F. Reeder, Chancellor; 1. There are two reasons why the decree should be reversed. (1) There was a complete satisfaction and discharge of the debt for which the mortgage' sought to be foreclosed was given. (2) No such loss or damage is shown as would entitle plaintiff to a foreclosure. There was a complete novation which discharged the Weeks debt. A release or satisfaction prior in time inures to the benefit of the junior incumbrancer. 2 Cyc. 1222-4. Where a prior mortgagee discharges his mortgage debt and takes a new one for the same debt, he loses his…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
In February, 1918, G. U. Weeks purchased a pair of mules from Cooper Bros, for the sum of $225 and executed his note to them for said sum with appellees Million, Bates and Ed Cooper as sureties. At the time of the execution of said note Weeks executed and delivered to Million a mortgage on said team of mules, containing the following recital:
“Whereas, the said party of the first part (the mortgagor) is indebted to the party of the second part (the mortgagee) in the sum' of $225 in the following way: The said party of the second part has this day signed a note for the above-named sum, due…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Elkins v. Henry Vogt Machine Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Clapp Bros. v. Halliday Bros.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Brewer & Son v. WinstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Alston v. BitelySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
- Reidmiller v. ComesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923