Barton-Mansfield Company v. Higgason
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentSmith, J.
It was held, as the majority say, in the cáse of Cox v. State, 183 Ark. 1077, 40 S. W. (2d) 427, that the provisions of the act of 1931, are mandatory and so they are. Being mandatory, they should be observed and not violated; which is only another way of saying that courts are not vested with a discretion to continue, or to refuse to continue, suits in which any attorney for either party to the suit is a member of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives, or is a clerk or sergeant-at-arms or a doorkeeper of either branch of the General Assembly. But it does not follow that the judgment…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chicago Public Stock Exchange v. McClaughryIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Sharum v. MeriwetherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Ex parte BrandonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Kinkead v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Ex parte WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.