LaCotts v. LaCotts
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The .appellant is mot estopped. The question ,of the validity 'and legality of the decree upon which the appellee, George LaCotts’ title is based, was not passed upon or acted on by this 'court, on the former appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The .appellant is mot estopped. The question ,of the validity 'and legality of the decree upon which the appellee, George LaCotts’ title is based, was not passed upon or acted on by this 'court, on the former appeal. The question is not res adjudicata. 50 Ark. 190; lb. 338; 97 Id. 611; 21 Id. 364; 105 Id. 5. Whatever pleadings or matters were set up in the former case, they were simply a collateral attack upon the decree .and the issue here has never ibeen decided. 97 Ark. 450; 96 Id. 540; 75 Id. 1; 91 Id. 394. 2. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is ¡the second .appeal in this ease. The 'former opinion is published in volume 109 of the reports, page 335, where the 'facts ¡are fully set out. It is a .controversy concerning the title to a quarter section of land situated in Arkansas County. The judgment of this court was 'that the decree of the chancery court be reversed ¡and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree in favor of the appellant, George LaCotts, who is ¡the appellee in the present appeal.
When the mandate of this court reached the chancery court, the present appellant, John A. LaCotts, who was the defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gaither v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Osceola Land Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sellers v. HorneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921