Frank Luke v. Jesse Hoyt Smith
| Decision Date | 24 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 150,150 |
| Parties | FRANK LUKE and John Luke, Appts., v. JESSE HOYT SMITH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Walter Bennett for appellants.
Mr. Lewis M. Ogden for appellee.
This is a bill brought by the appellee to establish and foreclose a lien on certain land, and already has been before this court. Smith v. Rainey, 209 U. S. 53, 52 L. ed. 679, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474. At that hearing the land was decided to be partnership assets as between Smith and Rainey, and, as such, subject to a lien for repayment of advances made to the firm by Smith. The present appellants claim a right in Rainey's interest, paramount to Smith's, by virtue of an execution sale on a judgment against Rainey. The material facts are few. The title to the land by deed on record stood in Smith as to two undivided thirds, and in Rainey as to the other third. About April 29, 1897, Smith and Rainey made the agreement construed in 209 U. S. 53, out of which arose the partnership and the consequent lien before mentioned. On June 11, 1902, the appellants began a suit against Rainey upon an individual debt of his, and attached his interest in the land. On June 11, 1903, they got judgment. On July 18, 1903, Smith began the present action, making Frank Luke a defendant, as claiming some lien alleged by Smith to be subordinate to his own. On August 6, 1903, an order of sale was issued in the suit of the appellants, on September 8 the land was sold to the Lukes for the amount of their judgment, on December 29 the sheriff made return, and on June 20, 1904, there having been no redemption, executed a deed to the Lukes. The Lukes had no notice of Smith's rights earlier or other than that derived from the beginning of the present suit.
The statute of Arizona makes all conveyances of land and all deeds of trust and mortgages void, as against creditors and subsequent purchasers for value without notice, unless recorded, but leaves them valid as against purchasers with notice or without valuable consideration. Rev. Stat. 1901, ¶749. The supreme court of Arizona, starting from the admitted fact that the statute was copied from the laws of Texas, after examining the Texas decisions, concluded that when the debtor holds the legal title in trust for others with those funds and for whose use it was purchased, a purchaser at a sale on execution who has notice of their rights before his purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunnicutt Const., Inc. v. Stewart Title and Trust of Tucson Trust No. 3496
...Jarvis v. Chanslor & Lyon Co., 20 Ariz. 134, 177 P. 27 (1919); Luke v. Smith, 13 Ariz. 155, 108 P. 494 (1910), aff'd, 227 U.S. 379, 33 S.Ct. 356, 57 L.Ed. 558 (1913); Valley National Bank v. Hay, 13 Ariz.App. 39, 474 P.2d 46 (1970). "Judgment liens are derived from statutes which create the......
-
Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Hinchman
... ... City (Van Vorst, Marshall & Smith, of New York City, on the ... brief), for appellant ... 417, 427-442, 12 ... Sup.Ct. 239, 35 L.Ed. 1063; Luke v. Smith, 13 Ariz ... 155, 108 P. 494; Luke v. Smith, ... ...
-
Neal v. Hunt
...to ascertain the facts upon which the claim is based.' Luke v. Smith, 13 Ariz. 155, 162, 108 P. 494, 496 (1910), aff'd, 227 U.S. 379, 33 S.Ct. 356, 57 L.Ed. 558 (1913). Constructive and actual notice have the same effect. Arizona Land and Stock Co. v. Markus, 37 Ariz. 530, 296 P. 251 We bel......
-
Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc.
...creditors or third party bona fide purchasers. As was held in Luke v. Smith, 13 Ariz. 155, 108 P. 494 (1910), aff'd, 227 U.S. 379, 33 S.Ct. 356, 57 L.Ed. 558 (1913), the recording statutes making all conveyances of land void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for value, unless acknow......