Drake v. Sherburne

22 S.W. 430, 57 Ark. 563, 1893 Ark. LEXIS 128
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided April 29, 1893·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

BatteE, J.

We think that the evidence shows that Klein and Sherburne confederated to defeat the enforcement of the deed of trust executed to secure the payment of the two promissory notes of Klein which are held by the appellant; that, in pursuance of this agreement, Sherburne purchased the land in controversy from the State for Klein, or for Klein and himself; that the purchase from the State is fraudulent as to the deed of trust; and that Sherburne should be treated as a trustee holding the land as security for the payment of Klein’s two notes.

The decree of the court below is, therefore, reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to the court to render a decree in accordance with this opinion, and for other proceedings.

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

Drake v. Sherburne, 22 S.W. 430, 57 Ark. 563, 1893 Ark. LEXIS 128 (Ark. 1893).

22 S.W. 430 (Drake v. Sherburne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Booth v. McCord
455 S.W.2d 868 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1970)
Renn v. Renn
179 S.W.2d 657 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Zimmerman v. Franklin County Savings Bank & Trust Co.
108 S.W.2d 1074 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1937)
Adams v. Sims
9 S.W.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Ana María Sugar Co. v. Castro
28 P.R. 225 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1920)