Long v. Langsdale
| Decision Date | 21 May 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 603,56 Ark. 239 |
| Parties | LONG v. LANGSDALE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court in chancery, W. S. EAKIN, Special Judge.
Affirmed.
E. F. Friedell and John Hallum for appellants.
The fee to lands sold by the U. S. remains in the government until transferred by patent. 132 U.S. 239; 13 Pet. 36; Lester, Land Laws, 665. The statute does not begin to run until the patent issues. 13 Wall. 99; 132 U.S. 239.
Scott & Jones for appellees.
An unrecorded deed is not permitted to prevail against a subsequent purchaser without notice. Tiedeman on Real Property, sec. 816; 2 Kent, Com. (5th ed.) sec. 456; 23 Ark. 735.
Both parties claim the land in controversy under transfer from Mary E. Spear. The deed to the plaintiffs was prior in date, but was not recorded until after the transfer to the defendant, his entry upon the land, and the institution of this suit. The court found that the defendant purchased the land for a valuable consideration, without notice of the prior transfers from Mrs. Spear, believing in good faith that she owned the land. There is nothing in the abstract or brief of plaintiff challenging this finding of fact, and we accept it as correct. Upon it, the judgment for the defendant was proper.
Affirm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marlar
...Burford, 197 Ark. 965, 125 S.W.2d 789, 791 (1939)(recorded deed provides constructive notice to bona fide purchaser); Long v. Langsdale, 56 Ark. 239, 19 S.W. 603 (1892)(same). Under Arkansas law, a bona fide purchaser only prevails when he or she lacks notice of the transaction in question.......
-
Jones v. Hill
...Ark. 152; 32 Ark. 458; 40 Ark. 540; 55 Ark. 544; 42 Ark. 140; 39 Ark. 434; 33 Ark. 607; 1 Dev. Deeds, 645-657; 54 Ark. 273; 28 Ark. 244; 56 Ark. 239; Sand. & H. Dig., § 728. There was no delivery of deed. 24 Ark. 224; 6 Am. Dec. 146; 20 Pick. 28; 17 Mo. 391; 20 Wend. 44; 47 Mo. 232; 2 Salk.......
- Carter v. Gray
- Ex Parte Gaines