Smith ex rel. Hartfield v. Clark
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error from Sevier Circuit Court. The plaintiff in error in this case obtained judgment against the defendant in error in the Hempstead Circuit Court, on the 23d day of July, 1823, for |>1487 951 cts. debt and costs: and brought his action of debt on this judment, against the defendant, in the Sevier Circuit Court, to the October term, 1834. To his declaration the defendant demurred, on the ground that the venue in an action of debt upon a judgment is local, and the action…
Read the full summary
Error from Sevier Circuit Court. The plaintiff in error in this case obtained judgment against the defendant in error in the Hempstead Circuit Court, on the 23d day of July, 1823, for |>1487 951 cts. debt and costs: and brought his action of debt on this judment, against the defendant, in the Sevier Circuit Court, to the October term, 1834. To his declaration the defendant demurred, on the ground that the venue in an action of debt upon a judgment is local, and the action should be brought in the county where the judgment was rendered. The demurrer being sustained, final judgment went…
1Opinion of the CourtLacy, Judge
The defendant filed a demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration, which was sustained by the court below; and this writ of error is sued out to reverse that judgment.
There is but one point in the case, and that is, was the venue well laid in the plaintiff’s declaration? In all cases, the venue is either local or transitory, and if it is laid improperly it furnishes good ground for a demurrer, or may be taken advantage of on the trial upon the general issue, by way of nonsuit. See 1 Chitty's Pl. 241; 1 Wils. 165; Cowper, 410; 1 Tidd, 367.. Where the cause of action could only have arisen in a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. JamisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902