St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Hart
Supreme Court of Arkansas
ERROR to Nevada Circuit Court. .Hon. J. K. Young, Circuit Judge. The occupation was a tort, a mere trespass, and not a ■“debt by contract,” within the meaning of Art. 9, Sec. 1, Const. 1874. Thomp. on Homesteads, sec. 381; State v. Melogue, 9 Ind., 196; Crane v. Waggoner, 27 Ind., 52, and 83 lb., 85 ; 1 Parsons, 6 Ed., 475 ; Bliss on Code Pleaa., secs. 128 and 152 to 154; Gantt’s Big., 4023. 1. The action for use and occupation is one of assumpsit upon an express or implied…
Read the full summary
ERROR to Nevada Circuit Court. .Hon. J. K. Young, Circuit Judge. The occupation was a tort, a mere trespass, and not a ■“debt by contract,” within the meaning of Art. 9, Sec. 1, Const. 1874. Thomp. on Homesteads, sec. 381; State v. Melogue, 9 Ind., 196; Crane v. Waggoner, 27 Ind., 52, and 83 lb., 85 ; 1 Parsons, 6 Ed., 475 ; Bliss on Code Pleaa., secs. 128 and 152 to 154; Gantt’s Big., 4023. 1. The action for use and occupation is one of assumpsit upon an express or implied contract, and not on the case ex-delicto. 7 Arle., 305; 25 lb., 134. It is based on the relation of landlord and tenant,…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
The appellant company had recovered judgment against Hart, in the Circuit Court, for uso and occupation of land, and had caused an execution to issue. Defendant filed a schedule of personal property, as exempt; and obtained a supersedeas. This is a motion to quash the supersedeas. It was refused, and the company appealed. It takes the ground that the provisions of the Constitution (Art. IX., Sec. 1), apply only to “debts by contract, and that-the statutory action, for use and occupation, supposes a tort.” That there is no contract in fact, but a trespass, for which the Statute has given a new…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Parker v. Independence Produce Co.Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1899