McClintock v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; C. F. Greenlee, Special Chancellor; The issue on former appeal, 86 Ark. 255, was the right of appellants to redeem, and it was remanded to the lower court “with directions to deny to appellees (appellants here) the right to redeem.” They had no right to raise the same issue again ’by an amendment to -their motion to redeem, and appellee’s demurrer thereto should have been sustained. 79 Ark. 193; 13 PI. & Pr. 861 and -cases cited.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is- the second appeal in -this case. The opinion on -the former appeal is reported in 86 Ark. 255 under the style of Robertson v. McClintock, and reference is made thereto for a statement of the case. The decree was reversed, and the cause remanded “with directions to deny appellees the right of redemption.” Upon the remand of the cause, McClintock and R-oleson filed a supplemental pleading in which they set up facts which -they alleged estopped Robertson from claiming title-to the lands in controversy. It is not necessary -to set out the matters constituting the alleged estoppel. It is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gaither v. GageSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Carmack v. LovettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Carlile v. CorriganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Hollingsworth v. McAndrewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Robertson v. McClintockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- Blair v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Sellers v. HorneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921