{
  "id": 1554962,
  "name": "Mullins v. Wilcox",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mullins v. Wilcox",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 Ark. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "92 Ark. 522",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1548571
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/92/0522-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 U. S. 146",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S. W. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S. W. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ark. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907426
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/64/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. W. 980",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ark. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1333923
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/68/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ark. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1333923
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/68/0348-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2917,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0471189698489556e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5525534500273954
    },
    "sha256": "83c4a69351519fd3874f98219dce5eabec0b9bdc8a335654a02974160d6aa4e6",
    "simhash": "1:8c70fee68c21eea9",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:49.378710+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mullins v. Wilcox."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant purchased' a tract of land on April 29, 1912, without actual knowledge of a mortgage thereon which had been executed by her grantor. This mortgage was executed May 1, 1902, to secure the payment of a note due May 1, 1907. This mortgage had been duly recorded, but no payments of any kind were noted on the margin of the record, nor were there other marginal endorsements to indicate that any agreement had been made extending the time of payment of the debt there secured. An agreement in writing was made, how7 ever, between the mortgagor and mortgagee whereby the time of payment was extended for five years or to May 1, 1912, but, as has 'been said, there was no marginal notation to indicate the existence of such agreement.\n\u2018Appellant says, therefore, that the lien of this mortgage is barred under the provisions of Section 5399 of Kirby\u2019s Digest. A similar contention was made in the case of Austin v. Steele, 68 Ark. 348, and (we quote the syllabus) if was there said:\n\u201cThe statute providing that payments on a mortgage debt shall not operate to revive the debt, so far as the rights of third parties are affected, unless the mortgagee \u2018 shall, prior to the expiration of the period of the statute of limitation, indorse a memorandum of such payment with date thereof on the margin of the record where such instrument is recorded\u2019 (Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 5094, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5399) does not apply where the mortgage debt is kept alive by subsequent written agreement.\u201d\nAppellants were not, therefore, entitled to have the mortgage .canceled as prayed in their complaint, which was filed August 23, 1913, and the decree denying that relief is,- therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rice & Dickson, for appellants.",
      "The appellees pro sese."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mullins v. Wilcox.\nOpinion delivered May 8, 1916.\nMortgages \u2014 limitations\u2014written agreement for extension \u2014 endorse? me\u00f1t on record. \u2014 The failure to make endorsements of payments upon a mortgage upon the margin of the record, under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5399, does not operate to defeat the mortgage, where it has been kept alive by a subsequent written agreement. (Austin v. Steele, 68 Ark. 348.)\nAppeal from Benton 'Chancery Court; T. if. Humphreys, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nRice & Dickson, for appellants.\n1. The Chrane mortgage is a first and prior lien. Appellees\u2019 lien is barred by Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5399. 68 Ark. 348. An unrecorded extension agreement could not keep appellee\u2019s mortgage lien alive against strangers. 45 S. W. 980; 64 Ark. 317; 42 S. W. 408.\nThe appellees pro sese.\n1. The statute of limitations did not bar appellees\u2019 mortgage lien because (1) the note was kept alive by written extension to\u2019June 1, 1912, and (2) all the transfers were made subject to appellees\u2019 mortgage. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5399; 68 Ark. 348; 92 Id. 522; 123 S. W. 646.\n2. The renewal agreement was sufficient to keep the mortgage alive. 2 Pingrey on Mortgages, 1418, \u00a7 1570; 108 U. S. 146; Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 146; 92 Ark. 522; 68 Id. 348."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 42
}