Apperson & Co. v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL FROM PHILLIPS CIRCUIT COURT. Non. M. L. Stephenson, Circuit Judge. We submit that it was not necessary that.the pi’omise to revive the debt should have been in writing. Samuels vs. Cravens, 10 Ark., 380. That if the defendant promised to pay the debt absolutely, no express acceptance was necessary.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM PHILLIPS CIRCUIT COURT. Non. M. L. Stephenson, Circuit Judge. We submit that it was not necessary that.the pi’omise to revive the debt should have been in writing. Samuels vs. Cravens, 10 Ark., 380. That if the defendant promised to pay the debt absolutely, no express acceptance was necessary. Williams vs. Robbins, 32 Maine, 181; Pratt vs. Russell; 7-Cush., 462; Fitzgerald vs. Alexander, 19 Wend., 402; Ilerndon vs. Givens, 16 Ala., 261. No expressed assent to a promise beneficial .to the creditor is necessary., Conway ex parte, 4 Ark., 360; Hempstead vs. Johnson, 18 Id., 123;…
1Opinion of the Court
English, Special Judge.
The appellants, E. M. Apperson & Co., sued the appellee, Thomas Stewart, in the Phillips Circuit Court, on a promissory note. The appellee pleaded that, after the making of the note, he was discharged in bankruptcy. The appellants replied that, after his discharge, he promised anew to pay them the money specified in the note. The issue was submitted to the court, sitting as a jury, finding and judgment for appellee; motion for a new trial overruled; bill, of exceptions setting out the evidence, etc., and appeal.
On the trial, D. JE. Myers, a witness for the appellants,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- McMillan, Administrator v. PalmerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Cain v. CarlleeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Insurance Co. of North America v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Craig v. SeitzMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Buell v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.