Collier v. Cowger

52 Ark. 322
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 15, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 52 Ark. 322 (Collier v. Cowger) 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
Collier v. Cowger, 52 Ark. 322 (Ark. 1889).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Warrant Eviction. Damage. A judgment against a covenantee in possession upon foreclosure of a lien created prior to the covenant, rendered after notice to the warrantorto appear and defend, is conclusive of the existence of an outstanding paramout incumbrance. It is a constructive eviction, and he is entitled to his action upon the covenant. Where the covenantee buys in the outstanding incumbrance to protect his estate, he is entitled to recover the sum expended in so doing, provided such sum does not exceed the amount paid to the warrantor for the property, with the legal interest on such sum from the date of the extinguishment of such incumbrance. Boyd v. Whitfield, 19 Ark., 447; Rawle Cov. Tit., secs. 143-6.

same. When paramount title is asserted, and maintained by judgment in ejectment, the recovery of interest prior to eviction, upon the sum paid the warrantor, will depend upon the answer to the question whether there has been a recovery of mesne profits by the plaintiff in ejectment. Interest on the money and mesne profits are regarded as the equivalent of each other. Rawle Cov. Tit., sec. 195 et seq., and cases cited-.

In this cause, plaintiffs, through their mother, purchased the land at a sale under I. C. Jones’ decree on January 14, 1886, and are entitled to recover the $274.69 of purchase-money paid Collier with interest at 6 per cent from January 14, 1886, to this date, amounting to $64.82.

The decree of the Circuit Court in so far as it awarded interest from November 29, 1884, is reversed. Otherwise it is affirmed and judgment will be entered here in accordance with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Bosnick v. Hill
731 S.W.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987)
Thompson v. Dildy
300 S.W.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1957)
Van Bibber v. Hardy
219 S.W.2d 435 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1949)
Bridwell v. Gruner
209 S.W.2d 441 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1948)
Elliott v. Thompson
120 P.2d 1014 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1941)
Fels v. Ezell
35 S.W.2d 359 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
Fox v. Pinson
34 S.W.2d 459 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
Mayo v. Maxwell
215 S.W. 678 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1919)
Stonebraker v. Ault
1916 OK 700 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Shelton v. Ratterree
181 S.W. 288 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915)
Brady v. Bank of Commerce of Coweta
1914 OK 757 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Madden v. Caldwell Land Co.
100 P. 358 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Carpenter v. Carpenter
113 S.W. 1032 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1908)
Scoggin v. Hudgins
94 S.W. 684 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Dillahunty v. Railway Co.
27 S.W. 1002 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Ark. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-cowger-ark-1889.