Legal Opinion

Albright v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 21, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Under our rules of practice, in equity exhibits to the complaint control its averments, and may be looked to for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint. Moore v. Exelby, 170 Ark. 908, 281 S. W. 671.

The general rule is that, where a deposit is made in a bank with the distinct understanding that it is to be held by the bank for the purpose of furthering a transaction between the depositor and a third person, or where it is made under such circumstances as give rise to a necessary implication that it is made for such a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moore v. ExelbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  2. Covey v. CannonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  3. Brogan v. KriepeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  4. Bank of Rison v. Layne & Bowler Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  5. Blalock v. Bank of McCrorySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pace v. State Use Saline County.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  2. Farrow v. Dermott Drainage Dist.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
  3. Royal Arch Benefit Ass'n v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  4. Bankers' Trust Co. v. Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-Operative Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API