Legal Opinion

Fulton v. Hunt

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1841PublishedCited by 3 opinions

This was an action of debt instituted upon two obligations and one note, in which the defendant recovered against the plaintiff's intestate, the aggregate amount of the several writings, with damages equal to the interest which had then accrued upon them. The declaration counts separately upon each instrument, one of which is for the sum of twenty-one dollars only.

Read the full summary

This was an action of debt instituted upon two obligations and one note, in which the defendant recovered against the plaintiff's intestate, the aggregate amount of the several writings, with damages equal to the interest which had then accrued upon them. The declaration counts separately upon each instrument, one of which is for the sum of twenty-one dollars only. The judgment was given by default, and the plaintiff in error insists that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the demand for twenty-one dollars, and erred in pronouncing judgment. After the assignment of errors had been…

1Opinion of the CourtRingo, C. J.

Upon consideration of the motion, it is the opinion of the court, that the right of the defendant to enter the remittitur in the circuit court, is unquestionable; this right has been held to extend, not only to the amount of damages, but also to several causes of action, distinct debts, distinct acres of land, and distinct pleas. Tate vs. Whiting, 7 Mod. 196; Morris vs. Gelder, &c., 1 Ld. Raym. 317; Mulcarry and - vs. Eyres et als. Cro. Car. 512; Cutforthay vs. Taylor, T. Raym. 395; Andrews vs. Delahay, Hobart, 178; Thwaites et ux., &c., 5 Mod. 212, 213, 214; Duppa vs. Mayo, 1 Saund. 283; 2…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Advocat, Inc. v. SauerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  2. Mullen v. RobisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  3. Hay v. Bank of the StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843

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

Powered by the Exa API