American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McManus

58 S.W. 250, 68 Ark. 263, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 66
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided June 9, 1900·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The object of plaintiff’s complaint was to cancel a deed of trust, which she claims was a cloud upou her title. She makes the deed of trust an exhibit to her complaint. A deed made an exhibit and referred to in a complaint in equity, and thereby made part of the record, would control the averments of the complaint. Buckner v. Davis, 29 Ark. 444; Beavers v. Baucum, 33 Ark. 722. Here the deed of trust exhibited with plaintiff’s complaint contains an express covenant to pay the debt of appellants, exactly similar to that contained in the deed of trust passed on by this court in New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Reding, 65 Ark. 489, where we held that, the mortgage being under seal, and containing a promise to pay the debt, the right of action upon it was ten years. The averment in plaintiff’s bill that “said trust deed is barred by the statute of limitations” was controlled by the stipulations and recitals in the trust deed itself, which showed such averment to be untrue. The court therefore erred in rendering a decree pro confesso cancelling the deed of trust. The decree was. not based upon a complaint which showed a good cause of action. It was therefore erroneous. Chaffin v. McFadden, 41 Ark, 42; Benton v. Holliday, 44 Ark. 6.

The judgment is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed for want of equity.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McManus, 58 S.W. 250, 68 Ark. 263, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 66 (Ark. 1900).

58 S.W. 250 (American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McManus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sommer v. Nakdimen
97 F.2d 715 (Eighth Circuit, 1938)
Citizens' Pipe Line Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co.
10 S.W.2d 493 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Thompson v. Hickman
262 S.W. 20 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
El Dorado v. Citizens' Light & Power Co.
250 S.W. 882 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)
Wilson v. Overture
248 S.W. 898 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)
Sims v. Miller
236 S.W. 828 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Goldsmith Bros. v. Moore
157 S.W. 733 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Swift v. Erwin
148 S.W. 267 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Cox v. Smith
138 S.W. 978 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Koons v. Markle
127 S.W. 959 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Cazort & McGehee Co. v. Dunbar
121 S.W. 270 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
McMillan v. Morgan
118 S.W. 407 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
Livingston v. New England Mortgage Security Co.
91 S.W. 752 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Montgomery v. Hanover National Bank
79 Miss. 443 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1901)