Fox v. Arkansas Industrial Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Jefferson Circuit Court. John A. Williams, Judge. 1. The plaintiffs had a right to seize the property in controversy notwithstanding the levy of the attachment of the interpleader. For definition of “possession,” see Abbott, L. D., in loco; x Rose. Cr. Ev., *'413; 42 Vt., 493. -An attachment does not cut off the vendor’s right to enforce his claim. Mansf.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Jefferson Circuit Court. John A. Williams, Judge. 1. The plaintiffs had a right to seize the property in controversy notwithstanding the levy of the attachment of the interpleader. For definition of “possession,” see Abbott, L. D., in loco; x Rose. Cr. Ev., *'413; 42 Vt., 493. -An attachment does not cut off the vendor’s right to enforce his claim. Mansf. Dig., secs. 4398-4401; 18 Wall., 341; 30 Ark., 113; 42 id., 431; Drake Att., sec. 243; 43 Ark., 142; 30 Ark., 266; 13 B. Mon., 239; 1 Camf., 282; 1 Wall., Jr., 311; 104 Mass., 162. 2. Neel had no interest in the property…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
1. Vendor and Vendee: Lien for purchases money. The appellee company sued out a general attachment against the property of C. M. Neel, and caused it to be levied upon a lot of loose railway rails and other material used in the construction of railroads. Subsequently in a suit against Neel for the purchase money of the same property, the appellants sued out a specific attachment under secs. 4390-9 of Mansf. Dig., and caused it to be levied thereon. The question presented by the appeal is, does the privilege granted *° vendor of personal property by the statute, take precedence of the rights of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Olson v. Moody, Knight & Lewis, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Fred E. Cooper, Inc. v. FarrLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1964
- Roy v. NotestineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Blass v. HoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Roach v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.