Land v. May
| Decision Date | 24 December 1904 |
| Citation | 84 S.W. 489 |
| Parties | LAND v. MAY. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
D. H. Rousseau, for appellant. W. S. Amis, for appellee.
On the 30th of September, 1896, May sold to Land 566 acres of land upon credit. It was divided into two tracts, separate deeds made for each, and twelve notes given—the first six for one tract, and the last six for the other. The notes were in usual form, and drawing 5 per cent. interest, and written after the signature of the maker was this: "This note is given as a part to secure payment on the following land" (giving a description of the tract for which the particular note was given). Deeds were made for the two tracts, each a warranty deed in usual form, with this additional matter, after describing the land: "The above land is secured by the following notes." Then follows a description of each of the six notes, and then follows this clause: "If the above notes are not paid when due, this deed to be null and void." Land went into possession under his deeds. Litigation ensued between the parties over the cutting of timber from the land, growing out of a difference between them as to an alleged agreement in regard thereto. The chancery court settled it by applying one half the proceeds of the timber cut and to be cut to May's notes, and the other half to Land. In this way nearly all of the first note was paid. The notes due December 1, 1898, and December 1, 1899, were not paid, and this suit was brought in Cleveland chancery court on February 7, 1900. The object of the suit was to declare the sale void by reason of the nonpayment of the second and third notes, regain possession of the land, and have the deeds canceled; and the notes were surrendered for cancellation and returned to Land. The court granted the relief as prayed, and directed the receiver who had been appointed pendente litem to turn over to May the possession of the lands, and to pay out of the rents collected the costs of the suit and the receivership, and $150 fee for plaintiff's solicitor, dispose of the balance of the crops, and bring the fund into court to be disposed of as thereafter ordered. As a mortgagee had intervened, it is presumed that these funds were to be applied toward the satisfaction of the mortgage on the crops.
The courts of chancery are not the appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial