{
  "id": 1564972,
  "name": "Mathis v. Litteral",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mathis v. Litteral",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "482",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 Ark. 481"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Pac. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N. E. 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Fed. 644",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        6718988
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/60/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1911616
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/53/0514-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 3493,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.200949342159247e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5936303622334739
    },
    "sha256": "71e08c15b1fd0d40d7649d30c521c27320e8f6f76130c5125763fb14da9f5905",
    "simhash": "1:9c5ee58f66b60a39",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:14.924196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mathis v. Litteral."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nAppellant instituted this action in the chancery court of Benton 'County to foreclose a mortgag\u00e9 on certain land, and made appellee a party defendant, alleging that a mortgageheld by -the latter was barred by the statute of limitations. The -suit was to cancel appellee\u2019s mortgage and to establish the priority of appellant\u2019s mortgage and to foreclose it. Appellee answered, claiming that his mortgage was not- barred but was superior to that of appellant\u2019s, and the court sustained that contention. A final decree was rendered foreclosing appellant\u2019s mortgage, subject, however, to that of appellee\u2019s as a superior lien, and the commissioner of the court was directed to sell the land, subject to appellee\u2019s mortgage, to satisfy appellant\u2019s debt. The sale was made by the commissioner, and appellant became the purchaser for the sum of $100, the sale being subsequently confirmed by the chancery court. Appellant then prosecuted an appeal to this court from that part of the decree which declared his mortgage lien to be junior and subject to that of appellee\u2019s.\nA motion is now presented by appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that .appellant, by accepting the benefits awarded to him under the decree, waived his right of appeal. That contention is sound, for appellant\u2019s purchase under the decree constituted a recognition of the superiority of appellee\u2019s lien, and his attack upon that lien by this appeal puts him in an inconsistent position. He can not accept benefits under such decree and then appeal from it. He purchased the land for a small sum at the sale, which was intended only to dispose of the property subject to appellee\u2019s mortgage lien; and if he should obtain a reversal of the decree, it would result in his getting more than he purchased. His position is therefore inconsistent. A litigant \u201cwaives his right to an appeal by accepting a benefit which is inconsistent with the claim of right he seeks to establish by the .appeal.\u201d Bolen v. Cumby, 53 Ark. 514; Albright v. Oyster, 60 Fed. 644; 2 Standard Encyclopedia of Procedure, 213.\nThe right of appeal having been waived, it can not be prosecuted. The appeal is therefore dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter Mathews, for appellant.",
      "Bice & Dickson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mathis v. Litteral.\nOpinion delivered March 29, 1915.\n1. Appeal\u2014right, of\u2014waiver.\u2014A litigant waives his right to an appeal by accepting a benefit which is inconsistent with the claim of right which he seeks to establish by the appeal.\n2. Appeal\u2014waiver of right.\u2014A second mortgagee sought to foreclose his mortgage, claiming that the first mortgage was barred by limitations. A decree was rendered, foreclosing the second mortgage, but subject to the first as a superior lien. At the sale the holder of the second mortgage bought in the property for a nominal sum and appealed from that part of -the decree which declared his \u25a0 mortgage to he junior to the first mortgage. Held, the appeal will be dismissed on the ground that the appellant, by accepting the benefits awarded to him under the decree, waived his right of appeal.\n3. Appeal\u2014waiver of eight.\u2014A litigant can not accept benefits under a deoree, and also appeal from it.\nAppeal from Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor;\nappeal dismissed.\nWalter Mathews, for appellant.\nBice & Dickson, for appellee.\nSupporting appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal because appellant has accepted benefits under the decree inconsistent with the appeal, counsel cite 47 Ark. 320; 53 Ark. 515; 53 N. E. 765; 2 Standard Enc. of Proc. 211, 212; 57 Pac. 261."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 508
}