Legal Opinion

Pennington v. Karcher

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 4, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). The first ground •relied upon for a reversal of the decree is that appellees could not join-in one suit to recover the amount alleged to be due them by appellant, for contribution. Assuming counsel for appellant are right in this contention, it does not call for a reversal of the decree, since, under our Civil Code, the trial court might have consolidated the actions if they had been brought separately. Earl v. Ellison, 138 Ark. 166, 210 S. W. 346.

It is next contended by counsel for appellant that the court .erred in refusing to sustain their plea.of. the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Richter v. HenningsanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Durbin v. KuneyOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Cooper v. RushSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  4. Greene v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
  5. Reed v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hazel v. SharumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  2. Trinity Universal Ins. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Heinemann v. HallumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  4. Shinn v. KitchensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
  5. Sommer v. NakdimenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API