Cole v. New England Securities Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Cole v. New England Securities Co.

293 S.W. 360, 173 Ark. 666, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 244

DecidedApril 18, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.W. 360 (Cole v. New England Securities Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cole v. New England Securities Co., 293 S.W. 360, 173 Ark. 666, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 244 (Ark. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Hart, C. J.~

(after stating the facts). The court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The law is that a purchaser at a foreclosure sale under a mortgage is entitled to possession and to the rents and jprofits after notice to quit and a demand for rents and profits has been made. North American Trust Co. v. Burrow, 68 Ark. 584, 60 S. W. 950, and Oliver v. Deffenbaugh, 166 Ark. 118, 265 S. W. 970. According to the evidence for the defendants, no demand for' the rents and profits ivas made upon them, and, under the. authorities cited, their testimony tends to show that they were entitled to the rents iand profits for the year 1924.

It is- true that, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, a demand for the rents and profits for the year 1924 was made, and the court should have submitted this disputed question of fact to the jury, under pro'per instructions. It could not direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, because there was a dispute upon the question of whether the plaintiff gave the defendants notice to quit and made a demand for rents and profits for the year 1924.

It follows that the judgment must be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.

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

Hart, C. J.~

(after stating the facts). The court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The law is that a purchaser at a foreclosure sale under a mortgage is entitled to possession and to the rents and jprofits after notice to quit and a demand for rents and profits has been made. North American Trust Co. v. Burrow, 68 Ark. 584, 60 S. W. 950, and Oliver v. Deffenbaugh, 166 Ark. 118, 265 S. W. 970. According to the evidence for the defendants, no demand for' the rents and profits ivas made upon them, and, under the. authorities cited, their testimony tends to show that they were entitled to the rents iand profits for the year 1924.

It is- true that, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, a demand for the rents and profits for the year 1924 was made, and the court should have submitted this disputed question of fact to the jury, under pro'per instructions. It could not direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, because there was a dispute upon the question of whether the plaintiff gave the defendants notice to quit and made a demand for rents and profits for the year 1924.

It follows that the judgment must be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W. 360, 173 Ark. 666, 1927 Ark. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-new-england-securities-co-ark-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack