Legal Opinion

Clark v. Gibson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1840Published

Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action of debt brought by Gibson against Clark, on a writing obligatory for the sum of §2,000. The declaration was in technical form, and sufficient. A bond for costs was filed, in the condition of which it is stated that Gibson was a non-resident.

Read the full summary

Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action of debt brought by Gibson against Clark, on a writing obligatory for the sum of §2,000. The declaration was in technical form, and sufficient. A bond for costs was filed, in the condition of which it is stated that Gibson was a non-resident. The defendant craved oyer, but there was no showing on the record that his prayer was either granted or refused; although the transcript contained a copy of a bond for §2,000, executed by Clark and others. The final entry in the case, and the only material one. after the prayer of oyer, was, that the…

1Opinion of the CourtRingo, Chief Justice

The plaintiff by his assignment of errors, to which there is a joinder, presents but two questions. 1st. Did the court err in overruling his motion to dismiss the suit for the want of a sufficient bond for costs ? 2d. Did the court err in overruling his demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration? The fact that the plaintiff was a non-resident of this State when the suit was commenced, is not established by any thing contained in the record, and, therefore, upon the principles stated and acted upon by this court, in the case of Smith, et als., vs. Dudley, ex'r of Talbot, dec'd, decided at the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Means v. CromwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1838

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

Powered by the Exa API