Legal Opinion

Albersen v. Klanke

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 21, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The first ground relied upon for a reversal of the decree is that there is no prayer in the cross-complaint for damages against Charles Albersen. This was not necessary. This court is thoroughly committed to the rule that, in a complaint or cross-complaint, the statement of facts and not the prayer for relief constitutes the cause of action, and the court may grant any relief that the facts pleaded and proved may warrant. Mason v. Gates, 90 Ark. 241, 119 S. W. 70; and Baldwin v. Brown, 166 Ark. 1, 265 S. W. 976.

It is true that, in the case last cited, it…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  2. Mason v. GatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Morgan v. Scott-Mayer Commission Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  2. Shick v. DearmoreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Chickeries v. CummingsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
  4. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  5. Malvern Brick & Tile Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API