Hoyt v. Ross
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The court erred in holding that appellees were not jointly indebted to appellant in the sum of $250 and interest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The court erred in holding that appellees were not jointly indebted to appellant in the sum of $250 and interest. There was novation because the assent to hold Oilar-Overland Company solely and release E. B. and J. B. Ross is lacking an essential to a novation. 125 Ark. 9. The Rosses are liable and so is the Oilar-Overland Company. 9'3 Ark. 346; 46 Id. 132 ; 91 Id. 367; 31 Id. 155; 6 R. C. L. 890 (ff); 13 C. J. 705 (ff); 65 Ark. 29; 121 Id. 414-418. The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the service. 93…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant instituted suit against appellees in the Third Division of the Pulaski Circuit Court, to recover $250 and interest. It was alleged in the complaint that E. B. and J. B. Ross, husband and wife, executed a series of notes, including the $250 note sued on, to the Oilar-Overland Company, to cover the unpaid purchase price of a certain automobile; that the notes contained a provision that upon failure to pay any one of them, or the interest thereon, all should become due; that they also contained a provision retaining the title to the automobile in the Oilar-Overland Company until the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stiewel v. BormanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gibson v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Metzger v. MannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Lingo v. SwicordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Barr v. CockrillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Mayhue v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.