Legal Opinion

Buckner v. Sessions

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 15, 1871PublishedCited by 2 opinions

APPEAL PROM CHICOT CIRCUIT COURT. IIon. Henry B. Morse, Circuit Judge. We submit: First, There are no answers or denials from Sessions as to the debt due B. & Co., and this default admits it as alleged, and a decree pro covfesso on that, binds them and all their privies : Cunningham v. Steele, 1 Litt, 58; 2 J. J. Marsh, 136; 6 Mon., 192; 8 Porter, Ala., TP)-, 4 Hen Munf, 476; Stoi-y Fcq. Pis., (by Redfield) 789-94 and notes.

Read the full summary

APPEAL PROM CHICOT CIRCUIT COURT. IIon. Henry B. Morse, Circuit Judge. We submit: First, There are no answers or denials from Sessions as to the debt due B. & Co., and this default admits it as alleged, and a decree pro covfesso on that, binds them and all their privies : Cunningham v. Steele, 1 Litt, 58; 2 J. J. Marsh, 136; 6 Mon., 192; 8 Porter, Ala., TP)-, 4 Hen Munf, 476; Stoi-y Fcq. Pis., (by Redfield) 789-94 and notes. The pretended liens of the appellees, Carlton & Hartsook, are subsequent to the Buckner claim, and they are in the wrong element in coming into this- cause: Whitaker ex.,…

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

This was a bill filed in the Chicot Circuit Court, to the October term, 1868, by Henry S. Buckner against William B. Street, by the description of assignee of Daniel IT. Sessions, Placid Forestall, as administrator of Henry A. Rathbone, deceased, John S. Whitaker, Daniel J. Hartsook, and John R. Fowler, to foreclose a mortgage. The bill alleged, in substance, that Daniel H. Sessions was, on the 21st day of February, 1866, indebted to Buckner, Newman & Co., cotton factors and commission merchants in New Orleans, of which firm the complainant was a member, by two promissory raptes of that date,…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hill v. BrittainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  2. Ward v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API