Chapman v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Little River Circuit Court. Hon. J. E. Borden, Special Judge. Bales was a bailee for hire, and his bailor could bring no action against him, either of trover or replevin, nor against his vendee, until the expiration of his lease. The action was not barred.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Little River Circuit Court. Hon. J. E. Borden, Special Judge. Bales was a bailee for hire, and his bailor could bring no action against him, either of trover or replevin, nor against his vendee, until the expiration of his lease. The action was not barred. Angelí on Lira., p. 128, note 8 (6th •ed.); 10 Ark., 888; 17 ib., 449; Bliss on Code PL, sec. 83; Story on Bail, sec. 39; Cooley on Torts, p. 449; 50 Ala., 19; Wells on Replevin, secs. 31 to 53. If one by his unlawful act prevents another from bringing a suit, the statute will not run until the disability is removed. Gantt’s…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
1. Statute of Limitations: When commences in trover. Chapman sued Hudson, in the Little River circuit court, to recover the value of a wagon and oxen which the complaint alleged belonged to the plaintiff and had been converted by Hudson to his own use. The conversion took place in the summer of 1879; the suit was brought in December, 1882, more than three years thereafter. The defense was the statute of limitations. The appellant sought to avoid the operation of the statute by proving that he hired the oxen and wagon to one Bales for the residue of that year, and that Hudson obtained his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lawson v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. WestbrookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Meacham v. Mid-South Cotton Growers AssociationSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938