Sessions v. Peay
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court. Hon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge. We submit that the bonds of the State, and coupons due thereon, were a good tender. Secs. 1, 10, 11, Act 26th Oct., 1836; secs. 1, 2, Act 19th Bee., 1837; sec. 5, Act 24th Feb’y, 1838; sec. 3, Act 12th January, 1853; 18 Ark. Rep. 288; 7 Eng. 811; 11 Ark.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court. Hon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge. We submit that the bonds of the State, and coupons due thereon, were a good tender. Secs. 1, 10, 11, Act 26th Oct., 1836; secs. 1, 2, Act 19th Bee., 1837; sec. 5, Act 24th Feb’y, 1838; sec. 3, Act 12th January, 1853; 18 Ark. Rep. 288; 7 Eng. 811; 11 Ark. Rep. 45. The contract between Sessions and the Trustees, was a specie contract; the notes upon which the judgment in question was rendered, were given for land purchased at specie rates, and the notes were payable in gold and silver coin only, and in no other medium…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice
English delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an application, by Daniel H. Sessions, to the Chicot Circuit Court, for a mandamus against Martin R. P. Mathis, the sheriff of said county.
The material facts stated in the petition, are: that on the 12th January, 1853, the relator and Charles R. Sessions, since deceased, executed to Biscoe and others, residuary Trustees of the Real Estate Bank, under the deed of assignment, two notes for $10,456 each, due at two and three years, with eight per cent, interest, etc. That the notes were drawn in the ordinary form, and for a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Murchie v. McNabSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sessions v. PeaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861