Bank of Eudora v. Ross
In Bank of Eudora v. Ross, 168 Ark. 754, 271 S.W. 703 (1925), it was argued that a party could not obtain a personal judgment in a foreclosure suit until after the report of sale showing that the amount realized from the sale was not sufficient to extinguish the debt.
The supreme court disagreed, noting that the two remedies were not inconsistent. The court said that, while the plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction, he is entitled to pursue each available concurrent remedies not inconsistent with each other.