Neale v. Newland
Supreme Court of Arkansas
This’ was an action of debt, determined in the Randolph Circuit-Court, in April, 1842, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the-circuit judges. Newland commenced his action, by writ of attachment. The first count in the declaration, was on a promissory note. The second count was for $500, for so much money by Newland laid out and expended for the use of Neale. Neale demurred to the declaration. Demurrer was sustained as to the first count, and overruled as to the second.
Read the full summary
This’ was an action of debt, determined in the Randolph Circuit-Court, in April, 1842, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the-circuit judges. Newland commenced his action, by writ of attachment. The first count in the declaration, was on a promissory note. The second count was for $500, for so much money by Newland laid out and expended for the use of Neale. Neale demurred to the declaration. Demurrer was sustained as to the first count, and overruled as to the second. Issue was then joined, upon the plea of nil debe.t, and jury came, verdict and judgment against Neale, for $>425 debt,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dickinson, J.
There are several questions attempted to be raised by the assignment of errors, but the whole case is reduced within a narrow compass. The doctrine is now too well established to need further illustration, that, after a party pleads in chief, he cannot again resort to his demurrer. The case, therefore, stands upon the count alone for money paid, laid out, and expended.
The only point to be decided, turns upon the correctness of these instructions. It is objected, that the giving of a negotiable note of hand for a prior debt, is not equivalent to payment so as to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Viser v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853
- Sparks v. ChildersCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1898
- Blair v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923