Gilmore v. Union Sawmill Co.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Counsel for plaintiff rely for a reversal of the decree in this case upon the authority of Tays v. Johnson, 173 Ark. 223, 292 S. W. 122. In that case it was held that the decree removing the disabilities of the minor was open to collateral attack. The reason was that the judgment removing the disabilities of the minor in that case had ■been lost, and no effort was made to supply it at the trial. No presumption of jurisdiction in such case arises from the mere fact of its exercise. The reason is that the court, in removing the disabilities of a minor,…