Smith v. Rucker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, . Chancellor; Permission to file the bill should have been given. 36 Ark. 532; 33 Ark. 161; 47 Ark. 17; 84 Ark. 203. The demand on account of cotton was barred by limitation. 37 S. W. 17; 41 Am. St R. 302; 139 Ala. 586; 64 Ark. 348; 59 Ark. 446; 70 Ark. 319; 75 Ark. 465.
1Opinion of the CourtFrauenthal, J.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court refusing leave to file a bill of review to reverse a former decree of that court on account of new facts alleged to have been discovered since said decree was entered.
In December, 1906, F. T. Rucker instituted an action in the circuit court against John R. Smith upon a note for $1,500, which it was alleged had been executed by Smith & Ward, a partnership composed of John R. Smith and A. C. Ward, to the Bank of Beebe on March 4, 1904, and by said bank transferred to said Rucker.
To the complaint Smith filed an answer and cross complaint, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boynton v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Bartlett v. GregorySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Greer v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Jacks v. AdairSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Woodall v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Gonirenki v. American Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Davis v. HaleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Tri-County Highway Improvement District v. Vincennes Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Long v. LongSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.