Legal Opinion

Jermany v. Hartsell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 10, 1949No. 4-8676PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Eose Smith, J.

Jermany and his wife filed their verified complaint under Ark. Stats. (1947), § 29-506, seeking to set aside a foreclosure decree for unavoidable casualty which prevented their appearance. The chancellor sustained the appellees’ demurrer to the complaint; from his order of dismissal comes this appeal. The only question is as. to the sufficiency of appellants ’ pleading.

The complaint asserts unavoidable casualty in that neither Jermany nor his wife was served with summons or had any knowledge of the suit. These allegations are sufficient. Hunton v. Euper, 63 Ark. 323, 38 S. W. 517. While the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hunton v. EuperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  2. Hirsch v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  3. Pope v. WyldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  4. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. CottrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fleming v. Southland Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  2. Jackson v. BowmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
  3. Story v. CheathamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  4. Bentley v. ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  5. Mason v. HatchettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API