{ "id": 1870932, "name": "Stephens v. Anthony, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Stephens v. Anthony", "decision_date": "1881-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "571", "last_page": "574", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "37 Ark. 571" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ark., 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721766 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/33/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ark., 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Ark., 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885762 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ark. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1868286 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/21/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark., 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725467 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/18/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ind., 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1442127 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/26/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 B. Mon., 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "B. Mon.", "case_ids": [ 4439585 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/45/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Miss., 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1670070 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/53/0697-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 359, "char_count": 4885, "ocr_confidence": 0.445, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.736454460590295e-07, "percentile": 0.7063417596933258 }, "sha256": "c5672e5dc07d9ebed9b6fab0c5c513a6e009b12a2087ffc1345a05fc62a0febf", "simhash": "1:4b25401fccf8914f", "word_count": 863 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:17.182005+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Stephens v. Anthony, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Harrison, J.\nIt is expressly declared by Section 564, Gantt\u2019s Digest, (Hci of April 24, 1873,) that \u201cthe lien or equity held or possessed by the vendor of real estate,, when the same is expressed upon, or appears from, the face-of the deed or conveyance, shall inure to the benefit of the assignee of the note or obligation given for the purchase-money of such real estate, and may be enforced by such.\nThis case appears to be within the very language of the Statute. If a lien had been in terms reserved in the deed, no question could possibly arise as to its passing with the assignment of the notes, and as it plainly appears from the face of the de'ed that the purchase money had not been paid, and that the notes were given for it, there is as little room for controversy, it seems to us, as to the existence of the equitable or implied lien.\nMost assuredly, if Samuel Anthony still owned the land, and the notes had not been assigned, the recital in The deed, that the price had not been paid, or, in other words, that the notes were given for it, would, in a suit by the vendor for foreclosure, be sufficient and cogent proof that it had not been paid, and of the existence of the lien ; and it is equally clear that the recital was notice to the subsequent purchasers. Deason v. Taylor, 53 Miss., 697; Honore\u2019s Ex\u2019r v. Bakewell, 6 B. Mon., 67; Thornton v. Knox\u2019s Ex\u2019r, Ib., 74; Croskey v. Chapman, 26 Ind., 333; LeNeve v. LeNeve, 2 Leading Cases in Equity, 168.\nThe decree is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint, and for further proceedings.", "type": "majority", "author": "Harrison, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "\u2022OlarJc & Williams, for appellant:", "J. W. Butler, for appellees :" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Stephens v. Anthony, et al.\nL Vend on\u2019s Lien: When apparent on deed, passes to assignee of purchase note.\n\u201cWhen it appears upon the face of a deed that the land was sold on time, and notes were given for the purchase money, the vendor\u2019s lien will pass to his assignee of the notes; and subsequent purcha ersof'the land are charged with notice of the lien.\nAPPEAL from JacJcson Circuit Court in Equity.\nHon. Richard H. Powell, Circuit Judge.\nSTATEMENT.\nStephens filed his' complaint in equity in the Jackson 'Circuit Court, against the appellees, showing that Mitch\u2022ell and Felix Crump, in 1875, sold to Samuel Anthony a two-^hird interest in a certain described tract of land in \u25a0Jackson county, for four thousand dollars, for which he executed to them his notes payable at future dates, and they \u2022executed to him a deed for the land, reciting that they sold and conveyed it \u201cfor the sum of four thousand dqllars, payable as follows, to-wit: $1000 the 25th December, 1876 ; \u25a0$1000 the 25th December, 1877 ; $1000 the 25th December, 1878, and $1000 the 25th December, 1879, for which sums he had executed to \u2019them his promissory notes, payable as.aforesaid.\u201d\nThat afterwards the said Anthony paid the first of said \u25a0notes, aud the other three had been transferred by the vendors for value to the plaintiff. That Anthony had sold and -conveyed the land to James B. Anthony, and he had sold and conveyed a part of it to Henry E. Malone arid his wife, -Sarah ; and that James Anthony and Malone and wife all had notice at the time of their purchases that said notes were unpaid.\nPrayer for a sale of the land for payment of the notes.\nThe defendants demurred to the complaint, claiming that the vendor\u2019s lien upon the land did not pass to the plaintiff by the assignment of the notes. The demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff rested, and his complaint was dis\u25a0missed, and he excepted and appealed.\n\u2022OlarJc & Williams, for appellant:\n'Cites and comments upon Moore & Qail v. Andrews\u25a0, 14 Ark.; Shall v. Biscoe, 18 Ark., 142 ; Scott v. Orbison, 21 Ark. 202; Williams v. Christian, Ark., 255; Bernays-v. Field & Dolley, Ark. ; Nichols v. Dunn, 25 MrAr., 129 Simpson v. Montgomery, lb. 365 ; Hutton v. Moore, 26> 382; Sheppard v. Thomas, lb. 617: Jones v. .Doss, 27Mr7c., 618.\nWhen a deed is made, which shows upon its face that the purchase money remains unpaid, and the vendor assigns the-purchase notes, (although no lien is expressly reserved by the deed,) the lien inures to the benefit of the assignee, and\u00a1 he may enforce it. Gantt\u2019s Dig., Sec. 564; Hecht v. Spears, 27 Ark., 229; Campbell v. Rankin, 28 11.-, 401;: Richardson & May v. Hamlett, 33 Ark., 238..\nJ. W. Butler, for appellees :\nVendor\u2019s lien is personal, and does not pass by assignment of the debt. Rogers v. James, 33 Ark., 77 ; Garrett' v. Williams, 31 lb., 250; Hechtv. Spears, 27 lb., 231.\nThe-case does not come within the terms of Sec-. 564,. Gantt\u2019s Digest; the lien is not expressed, nor does it appear from the face of the deed, nor was there any lien,, by contract, or reserved in any manner. The vendor parted with, the title absolutely, trusting to his legal remedies against the purchaser; the assignee has his legal remedy against, both purchaser and assignor, but none in equity." }, "file_name": "0571-01", "first_page_order": 569, "last_page_order": 572 }