Bloomer v. Cone
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court; Zachariah T. Wood, Chancellor; The decree should be affirmed for failure of appellant to preserve and abstract the oral testimony heard at the trial, and has omitted from his abstract more than half of the depositions read on the part of the plaintiff. 63 Ark.-513; 72 Ark. 22; 79 Ark. 86; Id. 185; Id. 263; 80 Ark. 20; Id. 259; 80 Ark. 579; 86 Ark. 369; 88 Ark. 449.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This action was .brought in the Chicot Chancery Court by the plaintiffs, Cone & Company, against the defendants, N. K. and Julia Bloomer, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the latter in favor of the former on certain lands in said Chicot County. This is the second appeal in this case. The former was an appeal from.a nunc pro tunc decree of a special chancellor. The decree was reversed and the cause remanded because the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing a continuance for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to procure testimony on the question of whether the decree had ever been…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Meeks v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Beecher v. BeecherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Jett v. CrittendenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Jones v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Siloam Springs v. BroylesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Loy v. StoneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- McCarson v. HankinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Watson v. SuddothSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945