Brewer & Son v. Winston
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Stone Circuit Court. Hon. W. A. Bevens, Special Judge. Rirst — The decree is void for want of jurisdiction. There was no element of equitable jurisdiction in the defense and cross-complaint. Jurisdiction in equity cannot be conferred by the transfer of causes purely legal and containing no grounds of equitable cognizance.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Stone Circuit Court. Hon. W. A. Bevens, Special Judge. Rirst — The decree is void for want of jurisdiction. There was no element of equitable jurisdiction in the defense and cross-complaint. Jurisdiction in equity cannot be conferred by the transfer of causes purely legal and containing no grounds of equitable cognizance. Crawford, Aud., v. Carson et al. 35 Ark., 583; Apperson 8g Co. v. Moore et al., 30 Ark., 58; Roberts et al. v. Jacks, 31 Ark., 608. Second — The code of practice does not apply to causes of action originating in justice’s courts. The provisions for the transfer…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Brewer & Son brought this action against Winston before a justice of the peace, on a promissory note and recovered judgment. The defendant appealed to the circuit court and there filed an answer, which he styles also a cross-complaint, alleging that the note is secured by mortgage on real estate; that he had sold his equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises to one Elliott, who had assumed the debt as part of the purchase price; and that the plaintiffs had consented to accept Elliott as their debtor and to release the defendant from further liability. And it was prayed that the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Alston v. BitelySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
- Simmons National Bank v. DaltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Riddick v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- International Minerals & Chemical Corp. v. CaplingerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- Hanson v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.