Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Ark. 314

Mooney v. Tyler

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 23, 1900

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1900-06-23

Leland Leatherman, Chancellor. STATEMENT BY THE COTRT This suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage for $500 on lot 6, block 1, and lot 1, block 9, in the city of Hot Springs. A note was given by appellants for the $500, in which it was stipulated that, if default was made in payment of interest or insurance upon the property, the principal and interest should at once become due and payable.

Relies on Mandel v. Peet, Simms & Co. · Ford v. Ward · Gaty v. Holcomb

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-06-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1993

15 state decisions

601900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) We find no reversible error in the decree of the court. The debt became due. and payable upon default in payment of the insurance. There was evidence tending to show that lot 1, block 9, was not incorporated in the deed of trust by mistake or fraud; at least, it is not clear that the chancellor was not right as to this. Unle.ss Hie findings of the chancellor was against the clear preponderance of the evidence, we should not reverse. Gaty v. Holcomb, 44 Ark. 216.

¶2There was no issue as to usury in the ease. Under the circumstances of this case, it seems to us that it was within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor to permit or refuse to permit the amendment setting up usury at the time it was offered, as it, if admitted, would probably have caused delay in the trial of the cause. There does noh'appear to be an abuse of judicial disei’etion in this, and we do not feel wari’anted in interfering with the chancellor’s discretion in the matter. Thompson v. McHenry, 18 Ark, 537; Mandel v. Peet, 18 Ark. 236; Ford v. Ward, 26 Ark. 360; Clayton v. State, 24 Ark. 16; Mohr v. Sherman, 25 Ark. 7; Campbell v. Garven, 5 Ark. 485.

¶3Decree affixuned.

Bunn, C. J., and Battle, J., not participating.
/68/ark/314 · .json · Public domain