Court Opinion

ID: 9825892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:16:00.860709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:27.653385
License: Public Domain

Baker, J. (on rehearing). Appellees urge, on petition for rehearing, that in order to sustain the foregoing opinion, holding the Hamburg,Bank’s rights are superior to the rights of the mortgagees, we must overrule the case of Wasson v. Beekman, 188 Ark. 895, 68 S. W. 2d 93. Counsel quote from a syllabus in that case as authority. We have re-examined the authorities and are impelled to hold that our conclusions reached are sound and that the mortgagees in possession of real property are not entitled to protection under the facts; that the case just above cited is not authority for the doctrine that possession of real estate by the mortgagee is tantamount to notations made on the margin of the records within the time as required by the statutes. Such was not the holding in the case of Wasson v. Beekman, supra. In that case the suit was filed before the debt was actually barred according to the mortgage record, a notice of lis pendens was filed at the time the suit was instituted and this notice set forth the facts in regard to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed. The court held that there 'was no inconsistency in the statutes providing for notice by lis pendens and in the statute requiring notice given by proper notations on the record duly made, and that, therefore, notice of Us pendens was tantamount to notations made on the margin of the record. Upon re-examination of the whole controversy, including the authorities cited on petition for rehearing, we must hold that the opinion was correct; and petition for rehearing is denied.