Legal Opinion

Henry v. Croom

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 27, 1897Published

Appeal from Pope Circuit Court. Jeremiah G. Wallace, Judge., STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is an action in replevin brought in the Pope circuit court by appellee, John A. Croom, against Silas A. Henry, as sheriff, to recover a stock of goods, wares and merchandise. The circumstances out of which the action arose are as follows: Henry and Walter Croom were engaged in a mercantile business at Atkins, Pope county, Arkansas, under the firm name of Croom & Bro.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Pope Circuit Court. Jeremiah G. Wallace, Judge., STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is an action in replevin brought in the Pope circuit court by appellee, John A. Croom, against Silas A. Henry, as sheriff, to recover a stock of goods, wares and merchandise. The circumstances out of which the action arose are as follows: Henry and Walter Croom were engaged in a mercantile business at Atkins, Pope county, Arkansas, under the firm name of Croom & Bro. They became indebted to the Ball Warren Commission Company of St. Bouis to the extent of about seven thousand dollars. Being unable to…

1Opinion of the Court

Riddick, J.,

(after stating' the facts.) The first contention is that the sale of the stock of goods in question was a part of a scheme for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Croom & Bro., and that both John A. Croom and the Ball Warren Commission Company by its agent advised and participated in such fraud. But the finding of the circuit court was against this contention. The court found that the sale was made in good faith, and that the price paid was the full value of the goods. Without discussing the evidence, we need only say that in our opinion it was sufficient to support the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Robson v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
  2. Greene & Button Co. v. RemingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Johnson v. McGrewSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
  4. Banning v. SibleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
  5. Flask, Preston & Co. v. TindallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API