Legal Opinion
Stephens v. Neely
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided November 19, 1923PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). Jack McDonald made no defense to the action against him on the promissory note by the plaintiffs. It seems that the main purpose of the action in the circuit court was to charge M. Neely as a partner with Jack McDonald on the promissory note which the firm of McDonald Bros, had executed to Mrs. Helena Hanks in the sum of $10,000 on March 27, 1914. It appears that certain payments were made on the note by Jack McDonald from time to time until the 2d day of April, 1918, and that this suit was instituted on September 27, 1921, to recover the balance due.
It has…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Herman Kahn Co. v. BowdenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Howell v. HarveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843
- Johnson v. RothschildsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Ringo v. WingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wine Packing Corp. of Cal. v. VossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Wood, Jr. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Northcross v. MillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Smith v. P. J. McGowan & Sons, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Oelkers v. PendergrastNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.