Legal Opinion

Fort v. Hundley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 15, 1843PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was an action of debt by petition and summons, determined in the Hempstead Circuit Court, at May term, 1S43, before the Hon. John Field, one of the circuit judges. Hundley sued Fort and others, the petition following the form prescribed by statute, word for word. Fort only was served, and a discontinuance was regularly entered as to the defendants not served.

Read the full summary

This was an action of debt by petition and summons, determined in the Hempstead Circuit Court, at May term, 1S43, before the Hon. John Field, one of the circuit judges. Hundley sued Fort and others, the petition following the form prescribed by statute, word for word. Fort only was served, and a discontinuance was regularly entered as to the defendants not served. Fort pleaded that he was a resident citizen of Lafayette county, and ought to have been sued there; and that the plaintiff was not, at the time the suit was brought, nor since that time, a resident of Hempstead county. Hundley,…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Ringo, C. J.

The assignment of errors questions the correctness of the judgment of the court, given upon the demurrer to the first plea, and also upon the motion to strike out the.second plea filed, as well as that pronounced on the demurrer to the petition.

The first plea is clearly within the principles decided by this Court in the case of Dillard vs. Noel, 2 Ark. Rep. 456, in relation to the truth of which our opinion remains unchanged, and therefore we hold the judgment upon the demurrer to this plea correct.

The other plea in abatement was stricken out; and not having been made…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clary v. MorehouseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1841

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Byrd v. State ex rel. AshleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854

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

Powered by the Exa API