Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 Ark. 438

Tallman v. Heuck

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 13, 1922

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1922-03-13

Clark, Judge; STATEMENT OF FACTS. Appellant sued appellee to recover the sum of $325, the value of one-third of the hay cut on a certain tract of land in Arkansas County, Ark. Appellant purchased the land on which the hay was grown at a mortgage foreclosure sale on July 31,1919. There was a confirmation of the sale by the chancery court on October 7, 1919. The hay was cut and removed from the land by a tenant of the mortgagor between those dates.

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2015

4 state decisions

Relies on Brasch v. Mumey · North American Trust Co. v. Burrow · Deisch v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1922-03-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hart, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). The ruling of the trial court was correct. In North American Trust Co. v. Burrow, 68 Ark. 584, it was held that one who purchases at a sale under a mortgage is not entitled to recover from the mortgagor in possession the rents and profits accrued during the year allowed for redemption, where he gave the mortgagor no notice to quit, and made no demand for rents and profits.

¶2Again in Deisch v. Moore, 97 Ark. 262, the court held that a purchaser at a mortgage sale is not entitled to recover from the mortgagor in possession the rents and profits during the period allowed for redemption. The court said that the mortgagor in possession during the period allowed for redemption is a tenant by sufferance, and is not required to pay rent until after notice to quit or eviction.

¶3In the instant case it does not appear that the purchaser at the mortgage foreclosure sale had acquired possession of the land or had given the mortgagor notice to quit. Hence the purchaser at the foreclosure sale was not entitled to the rents sued for and could not maintain a suit for the conversion of the crops.

¶4The case of Brasch v. Mumey, 99 Ark. 324, relied upon by counsel for appellant, has no application. The point involved in that case was whether the right of redemption under sale for delinquent assessments ran from the date of the sale or from the confirmation thereof.

¶5It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

/152/ark/438 · .json · Public domain