Lawson's ad. v. Badgett
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Pulaski County. 'Hon. Hulbert F. Fairchild, Chancellor. The claim of the complainant was barred by the statute of limitations, as shown upon the face of the bill. A demand barred at law is barred in équity. See Story’s Eg. PL 378, 389, 581; Humbert vs. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. R. 587; 2 A. K. Marsh. 45; 3 lb. 223; Thompson vs. Blair, 3 Murphy 583; Barden vs. Shelden, 10 Yerger 41; 1 Dev.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Pulaski County. 'Hon. Hulbert F. Fairchild, Chancellor. The claim of the complainant was barred by the statute of limitations, as shown upon the face of the bill. A demand barred at law is barred in équity. See Story’s Eg. PL 378, 389, 581; Humbert vs. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. R. 587; 2 A. K. Marsh. 45; 3 lb. 223; Thompson vs. Blair, 3 Murphy 583; Barden vs. Shelden, 10 Yerger 41; 1 Dev. Sf Bat. 73; Taylor vs. Bates, 4 Dana 139; 2 American Ch. Dig., by Wharton, p. 641. A party’s ignorance of his right until after the statute has attached, will not avoid its…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Compton
On the 18th day of October, 1849, Noah H. Badgett exhibited his bill, on the Chancery side of the Pulaski Circuit Court, against Robert Patterson, to enjoin an execution upon a judgment at law, by Patterson, against the late firm of McLain & Badgett, (Badgett being at the time of the issuance of the exetion, the survivor,) alleging that the judgment upon which the execution issued, had been fully satisfied by payment to James Lawson, who was, at the time of such payment, Sheriff of Pulaski county, and had in his hands an operative execution upon the judgment. Patterson answered the bill, on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sullivan v. HadleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- Speidell v. HenriciDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1883
- Sprigg v. WilmansSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Hope v. American Bonding CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940