Martin v. Vaught
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; The court erred in refusing instructions 2 and 3, asked by defendant. Shinn on Eeplevin, § 447 ; 77 Ark. 299; 87 Id. 641; 93 Id. 272; 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 74; 1 Elliott on Ev., § 132; 25 Ark. 482. It was error to refuse instruction No. 5. It was the law of the case, for two of plaintiff’s witnesses were her own sons. The suit was not brought within three years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; The court erred in refusing instructions 2 and 3, asked by defendant. Shinn on Eeplevin, § 447 ; 77 Ark. 299; 87 Id. 641; 93 Id. 272; 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 74; 1 Elliott on Ev., § 132; 25 Ark. 482. It was error to refuse instruction No. 5. It was the law of the case, for two of plaintiff’s witnesses were her own sons. The suit was not brought within three years. Kirby’s Digest, § 5064; 46 Ark. 489; 44 Id. 29. There was no error in giving or refusing instructions. No exceptions were saved. Kirby’s Digest, § § 6221-2; Kirby & Castle’s…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Mrs. E. J. Vaught instituted this action against W. A. Martin, as constable, to recover the possession of two cows. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the justice court where the suit was commenced, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court there was again a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed to this court. The material facts are as follows:
Mrs. E. J. Vaught owned a homestead in Montgomery County, Arkansas, upon which, among other personal property, there were the two cows involved in this suit. Her son, Garland…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Newhouse Mill & Lumber Co. v. KellerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3Cited by1 opinion
- Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. AdcockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921