Legal Opinion

Seeman v. Hilderbrand

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 21, 1938No. 4-4956PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.

Fred Seeman, the appellant here, is the son of John Seeman. His suit was directed' at N. S. Hilderbrand, having as its object cancellation bf á deed executed to Hilderbrand by John Seeman and his'wife. Ed Seeman, Minnie Seeman Wilson and Lula Huckabee are brother and sisters of appellant, Fred Seeman. Cromer was made a defendant in this suit because he had bought timber from Hilderbrand and was removing it from the lands deeded by John Seeman to'Hilderbrand. When Hilderbrand was á child, five or six years old, his mother, a widow,' married John Seeniaii. Hilderbrand has grown up and in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Puryear v. PuryearSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  2. Shaeffer v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
  3. Pernot v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  4. Cain v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  5. Beller v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ball v. HailSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. NelsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  3. Lee and Stewart v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  4. Hill v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  5. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API