Alexander v. Stack

Decision Date10 January 1927
Docket Number87
Citation289 S.W. 484,172 Ark. 530
PartiesALEXANDER v. STACK
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

J. A Tellier, for appellant.

Bogle & Sharp, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellants filed a complaint in which they alleged that in 1909 their ancestor, who then owned two lots in Smith's Addition to the city of Brinkley, mortgaged the lots to J. H. Stack, and that this mortgage was foreclosed under the power of sale incorporated therein. At this sale one Loeb became the purchaser, and he later conveyed the lots to Stack. Appellants brought suit to cancel these deeds, and in October, 1923, a decree was rendered which granted that relief. This decree recited that, while the foreclosure under the power of sale was void, a balance of $ 135 and interest was due Stack. Appellants were given eight months from the date of the decree to pay this sum, in default of which it was ordered that the clerk of the court, as commissioner, sell the lots, on a credit of three months, after first advertising the same in a newspaper for twenty days before the day of sale.

Appellants alleged that, through their absence from the State, they failed to pay the balance due on the mortgage, which was decreed to be a lien against the lots, but that a redemption was attempted on the day of the sale. They had been advised by their attorney that the amount necessary to redeem was $ 150, and one of the appellants appeared at the time and place of the commissioner's sale, and tendered that amount in redemption of the lots, but was informed by the commissioner that the judgment, with the interest and costs, amounted to $ 178.30. Not having this amount of money, and being unable to tender it, the commissioner proceeded with the sale, and Stack became the purchaser for that sum. Appellants alleged that the sale was not advertised for the twenty days as required by the decree, and that the lots sold for a grossly inadequate price, the lots being reasonably worth $ 600.

Appellants further alleged that, after the sale, they applied to Stack to redeem the lots from the commissioner's sale, and he agreed that they might do so by paying the debt and interest and all costs that had then accrued. They further alleged that they applied more than once to Stack for a statement of the amount required to redeem but were never furnished that information, and, when they last applied to him for this information, they were advised that the sale had been confirmed by the court, and that the commissioner's deed to Stack had also been confirmed, and that Stack had sold the lots to another party. Appellants further alleged that the confirmation of the sale and the commissioner's deed had occurred before the expiration of the three months' credit allowed the purchaser, and that they had been misled by this premature confirmation of the sale and the conduct of Stack in neglecting and refusing to permit appellants to pay him as agreed the amount for which the lots sold and the costs of suit.

Wherefore appellants prayed that the sale and the confirmation thereof be set aside and that Stack be required to accept the tender contained in the complaint, of the money which Stack had agreed to accept.

Appellee Stack filed a demurrer and an answer. The demurrer was sustained, and the cause was dismissed as being without equity, and this appeal is from that decree.

It appears from the foregoing statement of facts that this litigation arose out of a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage executed in 1909; that the court set aside deeds based on a sale made under the power of sale incorporated in the mortgage, and, after doing so, gave appellants eight months within which to discharge the balance found due on the mortgage. This decree was rendered on the 23d of October 1923, and the commissioner's sale did not occur until the 12th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Williams v. Hall
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2007
    ...would avoid a like sale between private parties, a court will not set aside an order confirming a judicial sale. Alexander v. Stack, 172 Ark. 530, 289 S.W. 484 (1927). See also Dumas v. Owen, 210 Ark. 505, 196 S.W.2d 987 (1946); Bank of Pine Bluff v. Levi, 90 Ark. 166, 118 S.W. 250 (1909); ......
  • Morgan v. Hattendorf
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1946
    ...rule announced in Day v. Johnston, 158 Ark. 478, 250 S.W. 532. See also Collins v. Harris, 167 Ark. 372, 267 S.W. 781; Alexander v. Stack, 172 Ark. 530, 289 S.W. 484; Roberts v. Miller, 173 Ark. 38, 291 S.W. 814; Hart v. Wimberly, 173 Ark. 1083, 296 S.W. 39; Sullivan v. Times Publishing Co.......
  • Hicks v. Norsworthy
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1928
    ... ... National Bank, 172 Ark. 284, 288 S.W. 388. See also ... Farelly Lake Levee Dist. v. McGeorge, 172 ... Ark. 460, 289 S.W. 753; Alexander v. Stack, ... 172 Ark. 530, 289 S.W. 484; Pettigrew v ... Pettigrew, 172 Ark. 647, 291 S.W. 90 ...          We ... cannot say that the ... ...
  • Morgan v. Hattendorf
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1946
    ... ... the rule announced in Day v. Johnston, 158 ... Ark. 478, 250 S.W. 532. See also Collins v ... Harris, 167 Ark. 372, 267 S.W. 781; ... Alexander v. Stack, 172 Ark. 530, 289 S.W ... 484; Roberts v. Miller, 173 Ark. 38, 291 ... S.W. 814; Hart v. Wimberly, 173 Ark. 1083, ... 296 S.W. 39; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT