{ "id": 8721766, "name": "Rogers vs. James", "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. James", "decision_date": "1878-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "77", "last_page": "81", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "33 Ark. 77" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "29 Ark., 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882892 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark., 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885762 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark., 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725467 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/18/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark., 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 329, "char_count": 6045, "ocr_confidence": 0.421, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7185546955425885e-07, "percentile": 0.7035653429987617 }, "sha256": "b7e9cc6fd78100c95e452aeb1703f4277f13c6aba5542c553f9b3850d332d2c3", "simhash": "1:b9784e1f5dd1b7f2", "word_count": 1081 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:04.416113+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Rogers vs. James." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ENGLISH, C. J. :\nThis was a bill to enforce a vendor\u2019s lien, tiled on the Chancery side of the Circuit Court of Dallas County, by James J. Rogers, against Jefferson James, and by an amended bill, William P. Rogers was also made defendant.\nA demurrer to the bill as amended, filed by the defendant James, was sustained by the Court, and the plaintiff, James J. Rogers, appealed to this Court.\nThe material facts alleged by the amended bill, are as follows:\nOn the 24th day of October, 1873, William P. Rogers sold to Jefferson James, the South-West Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, and the South-East Quarter of the South- West Quarter of Section 21, Township 10, South Range 17 West, containing eighty acres and situated in Dallas County, for $400, of which James paid him $100 in cash, and gave him the following obligation for the balance :\n\u201c By or before the first of -, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, I promise to pay W. P. Rogers, ox-bearer, the sum of $300.00, with ten per cent, interest from date until paid, for and in consideration of a certain tract or parcel of land, to-wit: the South-East quarter, the NorthEast quarter, North-West quarter, South-West quarter of Section 21, Township ten, (10), seventeen West, for which said land is to stand collateral security for the same.\n\u201c October 24th, 1873.\n\u201cJEFFERSON JAMES, [SEAL.] \u201d\nThat by the contract of sale, the note for the unpaid pur-chaso money was to be payable on the first of Januax-y, 1875, but by inadvertance, the month of its matuxity was omitted in the note, in which also, the land was misdesci-ibed by mistake.\nThat on the first of January, 1874, W. P. Rogers, the vendor, executed to James, at his request, a deed for the land, which was written by James, and which was absolute on its face, reciting the payment of the purchase money, but upon the understanding that the land was to be still bound for the payment of the note.\nThat on the 6th of February, 1874, William P. Rogers, being indebted to the plaintiff, James P. Rogers, for the purpose of paying and satisfying said indebtedness, assigned to him the note by the following endorsement thereon :\n\u201c I do assign over all my right and interest to the within note to James J. Rogers, for value received of him this 6th day of February, 1874.\n\u201cW. P. Rogers.\u201d\nThe bill alleged that the note had not been paid, and prayed a decree against both defendants for the amount of the note, that the vendor\u2019s lien (which plaintiff insisted had been transferred to him by the assignment of the note) be enforced, and the land condemned and Bold for tbe satisfaction of the decree, etc.\nWhen William P. Rogers sold the land to appellee, and took bis note for the purchase money, he retained the title to the land as security for the debt, and had he then' assigned the note to appellant, the security would have followed as an incident to the debt. See cases cited and reviewed in Campbell v. lian-Jcin, et al., 28 Ark., 407.\nBut before the assignment of the note to appellant, William P. Rogers conveyed the land by absolute deed, reciting the payment of the purchase money to appellee, after which he had no security for the payment of the note, but a vendor\u2019s lien in equity. The note was not a mortgage upon the laud, nor in the nature of a mortgage.\nIt was decided by this Court upon full review of authorities, in Shall, ad\u2019mr. v. Biscoe, et al., 18 Ark., 142, that the vendor\u2019s equitable lien is personal, and does not pass to an assignee by assignment of a note for purchase money, and this case has been repeatedly approved and followed.\nIn Hecht v. Spean, adm\u2019r., 27 Ark., 229, the vendor in an assignment of a note for purchase money, expressly attempted to transfer his equitable lien upon the lands, describing them, to the assignee, but this court held that the lien could not be so transferred.\nHad the note been re-assigned to William P. Rogers, or had he taken it up on failure of appellee to pay it, the debt and lien would have been re-united in him, and he could have maintained a bill to enforce the lien. Bernays v. Field, 29 Ark., 218 ; Turner, use, etc. v. Hornor, adm\u2019r., Ib. 440. But such is not the case made by the bill.\nThere are no allegations in the bill to charge William P. Rogers, who was made defendant. It is not alleged that the note was duly presented to the maker for payment, that payment was refused, and that he had due notice thereof. Adams, adm\u2019r. v. Boyd, MS.\nDecree affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "ENGLISH, C. J. :" } ], "attorneys": [ "Compton, for appellant.", "Duffeo <& Hill, Contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Rogers vs. James.\n1. PURCHASE Money for Land. When Security for passes to Assignee. 'Vendor\u2019s Lien not assignable.\nWhere a vendor of land retains the title as security for the purchase money, , and afterwards assigns the land note, the security for its payment passes to the assignee as an incident to the debt. But where the land is conveyed by an absolute deed, reciting the payment of the purchase money, the vendor has no security for its payment but a vendor\u2019s lien in equity, which is not assignable either by an assignment of the note or by express transfer or assignment of the lien.\n2. VENDOR\u2019S Lien. When note reassigned by Assignee to Vendor, he may enforce the lien.\nWhen an assigned note for the purchase money for land, is reassigned to the vendor, or when the vendor takes up the note upon the failure of the vendor to pay it, the debt and lien become reunited in him, and he can enforce the lien in equity.\n3. Mortgage.\nA note for the purchase money of land, the title to which is retained by the vendor as security for its payment, reciting that the land \u201c is to stand as collateral security for its payment,\u201d is not a mortgage nor in the nature of one.\n4. Assignor and Assignee. When Assignor Liable. Pleading.\nWhen the complaint of an assignee against an assignor does not allege that the note was duly presented to the maker for payment, that payment was refused and that the assignor had due notice thereof, it shows no cause of action.\nAPPEAL from Dallas Circuit Court in Chancery.\nHon. T. F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.\nCompton, for appellant.\nDuffeo <& Hill, Contra." }, "file_name": "0077-01", "first_page_order": 77, "last_page_order": 81 }