Mayfield v. Creamer
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. The intention of the Legislature was to secure the property sold by the vendor in the hands of the vendee and subject it to the payment of the debt (Act March 9, 1877), and not to go beyond or outside of the property sold, orto substitute personal liability therefor.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. The intention of the Legislature was to secure the property sold by the vendor in the hands of the vendee and subject it to the payment of the debt (Act March 9, 1877), and not to go beyond or outside of the property sold, orto substitute personal liability therefor. See Ward v. Carlton et al., 26 Ark., 6627. The bond is similar to that in replevin, and the liability the same (sec. 501¡2 Gantt’s Digest), and may be discharged by delivery of the property. Where property is taken from sureties by process of law, over which…
1Opinion of the CourtEaicin, J.
Cassa Creamer sued Mayfield as surety on a bond, which had been given by Peter Creamer and W. D. McMasters, defendants in a former suit against them by Cassa Creamer to recover the price of -personal property sold to them, and in their possession. The suit was under the act of the ninth of March, 1877. The bond executed by the defendants and Mayfield was to the effect that the said defendants would perform the judgment of the court in that action. These matters are set forth in the present complaint, with the further allegations that complainant recovered the sum of $344.50 on the sixth of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fondren v. NortonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Rogers v. Tri-State Motor Sales Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Lott v. PorterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910