Barnett Bros. v. Henry
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge on Exchange; 1. The complaint fails to state that appellees had a defense to the action in which the judgment was obtained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge on Exchange; 1. The complaint fails to state that appellees had a defense to the action in which the judgment was obtained. Tihe demurrer should have been sustained. 52 Ark. 80; 12 S. W. 156; 102 Ark. 252; 144 S. W. 190; 54 Ark. 541; 16 S. W. 571; 83 Ark. 21; 102 S. W. 711. 2. The judgment became final at the end of the term and could not be set aside or modified. 139 S. W. 289; 99 Ark. 433. 3. Appellees made themselves parties and it was proper to render judgment against them. 125 S. W. 136; 94 Ark. 1; 35 Id. 278; 31 Id. 194; 37 Id.…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts).(1) This is in effect a proceeding after the expiration of the term at which ia judgment was rendered to modify or set it aside under section 4431 of Kirby’s Digest and to quash an execution alleged to be improperly issued on it under section 3224 of Kirby’s Digest. A judgment or decree may be vacated or modified after the expiration of the term for fraud or mistake in its procurement in a proceeding instituted for that purpose in the court in which it wias rendered. Montague v. Craddock, 128 Ark. 59; Dale v. Bland, 93 Ark. 266, and Wood v. Stewart, 81 Ark.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Montague v. CraddockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Dale v. BlandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- McCoy & Son v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926