Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Alexander v. Mason
Citations: 216 Ark. 367; 225 S.W.2d 680; 1950 Ark. LEXIS 542Docket: 4-9030
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 9, 1950; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
An appeal was made regarding a decree that quieted title to a tract of land in Calhoun County in favor of the widow and children of Dr. E. L. Hathcock, deceased, against L. R. Alexander and his wife, the appellants. The appellants entered possession of the land under a contract for sale and bond for title executed by Dr. Hathcock on May 19, 1932. The appellees claimed that the appellants owed $1,775.48 plus interest under this contract and sought a judgment that would create a lien on the land and allow for its foreclosure. There was a dispute over whether the 1932 contract was the original or if an earlier 1922 contract existed, which the appellants asserted was lost in a fire in 1934. The Chancellor concluded that the 1932 contract constituted a novation of any prior agreements and determined that the Alexanders had forfeited their right to purchase the land, thus becoming tenants. The court canceled the contract as a cloud on the appellees’ title and quieted the title in their favor. Although the appellants acknowledged their indebtedness to the appellees, they argued that the Chancellor erred by canceling the contract and quieting title without first determining the amount owed and allowing them an opportunity to satisfy the debt. The court agreed with the appellants, referencing previous case law that established the relationship of vendor and vendee as akin to mortgagor and mortgagee, and noted that the proper remedies for the vendor included pursuing the debt or foreclosure. Consequently, the decree was partially reversed, and the case was remanded for the court to ascertain the amount of the appellants' indebtedness, which would be a lien on the property, to be foreclosed if not paid within a reasonable timeframe set by the chancery court. The remaining aspects of the decree were affirmed, with the appellees ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.