Nix v. Draughon

19 S.W. 669, 56 Ark. 240, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 144
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 21, 1892·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hemingway, J.

1. Judicial sale not set aside for i ti - adeqtiacyof price.

The sale was made in accordance with the'decree, and there was no showing' that it was conducted fraudulently or unfairly. The fact that the lands sold for an inadequate price was not sufficient to entitle the defendant to a resale, and the court did not err in refusing to order one. Fry v. Street, 44 Ark. 502; Blackburn v. Selma Ry. 3 Fed. Rep. 689; 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (4th ed.), 1285.

2. Validity of sale of land in a body.

The defendant cannot complain that the three acre tract was sold in a body. The decree condemned it as one tract, and if he wished it to be sold in subdivisions, he should have asked the court to so order or the master to so offer it. He could not remain silent with regard to the matter until the sale was made, and afterward be permitted to insist upon it by way of objection to confirming the sale.

Affirmed.

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

Nix v. Draughon, 19 S.W. 669, 56 Ark. 240, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 144 (Ark. 1892).

19 S.W. 669 (Nix v. Draughon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mulkey v. White
242 S.W.2d 836 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1951)
George v. Norwood
91 S.W. 557 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
Cooper v. Ryan
83 S.W. 328 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1904)
Dazet v. Landry
30 P. 1064 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1892)