Anderson-Tully Co. v. Rozelle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Coprt. Felix G. Taylor, Judge. The levy on “all the lumber belonging to said E. D. Matthews” was void for uncertainty, and a sale under it would convey no title.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Coprt. Felix G. Taylor, Judge. The levy on “all the lumber belonging to said E. D. Matthews” was void for uncertainty, and a sale under it would convey no title. Sand. & H. Dig., §§ 335, 336; 14 Ark. 41; 4 Ark. 198; 7 Ark. 415; 28 S. E. 219; 2 Caines, 61. As the plaintiff acquired no lien by the levy, he had no right to contest the claim of the interpleader. 19 Cal. 41; 43 Cal. 206. The interpleader could not have moved to quash the return on the attachment. Only the defendant could have done that. 23 S. W. 450; 47 Ark. 31; id. 19. But the intervener may always…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 11th day of July, 1898, L. D. Rozelle commenced (not filed) an action against E. D. Matthews in the Mississippi circuit court on an account for $495.70. On the same day he sued out an order of attachment, which was served on the 12th day of July, 1898, by attaching certain lumber as the property of Matthews. On the 7th of December following, Anderson-Tully Company filed a complaint in the action instituted by Bozelle, claiming the lumber attached. A jury was impaneled to inquire into the facts. In the trial which followed, the following facts, substantially, were shown by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lynch v. DaggettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
3Cited by4 opinions
- Massey v. DixonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- McDermott v. Kimball Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Securities Investment Co. of St. Louis v. WilliamsDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1960
- Heinemann v. PenningtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941