Faulkner v. Cook
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; Chas. W. Smith, Judge; 1. The jury should have been instructed, as requested by appellant, that if the plaintiff purchased an interest in the goods or the proceeds thereof; and if his only right to the goods or a lien thereon was based on such purchase, he could not recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; Chas. W. Smith, Judge; 1. The jury should have been instructed, as requested by appellant, that if the plaintiff purchased an interest in the goods or the proceeds thereof; and if his only right to the goods or a lien thereon was based on such purchase, he could not recover. There was evidence to support such an instruction; and where there is evidence to sustain a particular theory' of a case, the court should properly instruct the jury as to such theory. 50 Ark. 545; 52^ Ark. 45; 76 Ark. 232. 2. The only issue submitted to the jury was as to whether or not…
1Opinion of the Court
Riddick, J.,
B. W. Cook brought an action in the circuit court of Union County against S. D. Thompson on two promissory notes amounting with interest to $586.' He sued out a writ of attachment, and levied the same upon a stock of shoes. These shoes were claimed by R. A. Faulkner and others, who gave a retaining bond as provided by sections 425 to 429, Kirby’s Digest, conditioned that they would interplead for the property attached. This bond is not exactly in the statutory form, though the difference is slight and not material here.
The defendant Thompson made no defense, and judgment was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Izard County v. HinkleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Turner v. Collier & DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881