Ex parte McMeechen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
On Application for Prohibition. “ Be it remembered, that, on this day, came before the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, in proper person, JohnMcMeechen, D. J. Slaughter and Thomas W. Hynes, and give to the Court here to understand and be informed that, on the 30th day of November, 1842, they, by the consideration and judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court, recovered against a certain William Conway B. the sum of $324 54, for their debt, as well as interest thereon at…
Read the full summary
On Application for Prohibition. “ Be it remembered, that, on this day, came before the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, in proper person, JohnMcMeechen, D. J. Slaughter and Thomas W. Hynes, and give to the Court here to understand and be informed that, on the 30th day of November, 1842, they, by the consideration and judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court, recovered against a certain William Conway B. the sum of $324 54, for their debt, as well as interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, from the 25th November, 1842, until paid, and the costs of suit, which were afterwards taxed to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
It was laid down upon authority, by this Court, in the case of Williams Ex parte, (4 Ark. 540,) that “the rule was, at common law, that no prohibition lay to an inferior court in a cause arising out of its jurisdiction, until that matter had been pleaded in the original court and the plea refused, and that it must appear in the suggestion that the plea was verified and tendered in person during the sitting of the inferior court.” And the same doctrine was reiterated in the subsequent case of Blackburn Ex parte, 5 Ark. R. 22.
This rule is decisive of the application at bar, because it is in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Woods v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Mooney v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919