Van Meter v. Addington
466 S.W.2d 249, 250 Ark. 598, 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1302
Opinion
Appellant Ike Van Meter acquired a State tax deed from thei State Land Commissioner under the following description:
“Parts of Section Exc. 1A W of RR SW M NE M Sec. 22 Twp. 2S, Range 3E, Acres 24, lOOths .00 year for which forfeited 1966.”
In a quiet title suit by appellees Emma Murphy Adding-ton and Deborah White, the trial court held :the description void. We affirm for the reasons stated in Brinkley v. Halliburton, 129 Ark. 334, 196 S. W. 118 (1917), Halliburton v. Brinkley, 135 Ark. 592, 204 S. W. 213 (1918), and Irby v. Drusch, 220 Ark. 250, 247 S. W. 2d 204 (1952).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Van Meter v. Addington, 466 S.W.2d 249, 250 Ark. 598, 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1302 (Ark. 1971).
466 S.W.2d 249 (Van Meter v. Addington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brinkley v. Halliburton
196 S.W. 118 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1917)
Halliburton v. Brinkley
204 S.W. 213 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
Irby v. Drusch
247 S.W.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1952)