Miller v. Grady

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Miller v. Grady

88 S.W. 963, 76 Ark. 270, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 65

DecidedJuly 8, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.W. 963 (Miller v. Grady) 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

Miller v. Grady, 88 S.W. 963, 76 Ark. 270, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 65 (Ark. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) No question was raised in the court below as to the manner in which the levy was proved, nor as to the proof of the satisfaction of the execution directed and delivered to the constable, Dorsey, from whom ‘appellant claims. Appellee virtually concedes that appellant would not be precluded from setting up his rights as a purchaser at the execution sale by the constable by any faihtre of the constable to make proper return of the execution showing what had been done under it. It clearly appears that the constable levied on the property in controversy prior to the levy that was made by the appellee, and, under the decision of this court in Derrick v. Cole, 60 Ark. 397, secured the prior lien, and it is also reasonably clear from the evidence that appellant purchased at the sale made by the constable under this levy. Appellant’s claim to the property in controversy is, therefore, prior and superior to the claim of appellee.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) No question was raised in the court below as to the manner in which the levy was proved, nor as to the proof of the satisfaction of the execution directed and delivered to the constable, Dorsey, from whom ‘appellant claims. Appellee virtually concedes that appellant would not be precluded from setting up his rights as a purchaser at the execution sale by the constable by any faihtre of the constable to make proper return of the execution showing what had been done under it. It clearly appears that the constable levied on the property in controversy prior to the levy that was made by the appellee, and, under the decision of this court in Derrick v. Cole, 60 Ark. 397, secured the prior lien, and it is also reasonably clear from the evidence that appellant purchased at the sale made by the constable under this levy. Appellant’s claim to the property in controversy is, therefore, prior and superior to the claim of appellee.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.W. 963, 76 Ark. 270, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-grady-ark-1905.