Chancellor v. Stephens
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; B. H. Dudley, Judge; 1. The testimony of Light introducing the telegram was inadmissible. It was mere hearsay. 1 Green. Ev., 184, § 99. The error was prejudicial. 3 Cyc. 386. 2. It was error to tell the jury that the question for them to determine was as to whether or not Storms and wife gave the property to appellee and put them in possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; B. H. Dudley, Judge; 1. The testimony of Light introducing the telegram was inadmissible. It was mere hearsay. 1 Green. Ev., 184, § 99. The error was prejudicial. 3 Cyc. 386. 2. It was error to tell the jury that the question for them to determine was as to whether or not Storms and wife gave the property to appellee and put them in possession. This was not the question at all but was: Did Storms and wife trade the property to Mitchell who sold it to appellant? 97 Ark. 11. 3. It was error to give the first instruction for the same reasons. 4. Instruction No.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellees, George Stephens and his wife, brought replevin in the court of a justice of the peace to recover from appellant Chancellor certain described personal property. The cause was transferred to the court of common pleas, where there was a trial and judgment in favor of Stephens, and an appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, and a judgment was there again rendered in favor of Stephens upon a trial before a jury. Stephens claimed the property as a gift from one S. M. Storms, who had removed from Greene County, Arkansas, to California, while Chancellor claimed to own the property by…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cronberg Bros. v. JohnsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1922
- Roach v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. HavensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. TollersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Sakaba Oil Company v. ParishSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927