Brittinum v. Jones
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court in Chancery. 1. The court below was evidently governed by Hamby v. Wall, 48 Ark. 135, which was the common law; but it is changed by statute. Gould’s Dig., p. 95 — “Accounts.” This was omitted from Mansfield’s Digest, though it has never been repealed. The statute is a re-enactment of the statute of Anne, and its meaning is plain.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court in Chancery. 1. The court below was evidently governed by Hamby v. Wall, 48 Ark. 135, which was the common law; but it is changed by statute. Gould’s Dig., p. 95 — “Accounts.” This was omitted from Mansfield’s Digest, though it has never been repealed. The statute is a re-enactment of the statute of Anne, and its meaning is plain. Freeman on Co-Ten. sec. 273. But in this case Brittinum had given Jones a power of attorney to collect his part of the rents. Ib. sec: 268 ; 33 Vt. 593 ; 80 Am. Dec. 653 ; 4 Kent, Com. 370. Nor do we see how Hamby v. Wall can be…
1Opinion of the CourtBatteE, J.
This is an action for partition of the lands which were originally owned and held in fee simple by Mills E- Brittinum and Reuben S. Jones as tenants in common, each one being the owner of one undivided half. While they held the land in this manner, Jones died in December, 1882, intestate, leaving the appellees .his heirs surviving-. After this Brittinum brought this .action against the appellees for a partition of the lands .and for an account of the rents and profits thereof received by Jones in his life-time and by his heirs after his death. During the pendency of the action Brittinum died…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. HershySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
- Turner v. RisorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dunavant v. FieldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Omohundro v. ElkinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1902
- Dove v. DonnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941