Haines v. McCormick
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Debt in the Pope circuit court, determined in March, 1844, before theHon. R. C. S. Brown, one of the circuit judges. Haines and Darrah, partners, sued McCormick. At the return term McCormick appeared, and filed his motion to dismiss the suit, because there was no sufficient bond for costs filed previous to the institution of the suit. This motion was overruled. The record shows a good bond for costs, and that it was filed on the same daj with the declaration.
Read the full summary
Debt in the Pope circuit court, determined in March, 1844, before theHon. R. C. S. Brown, one of the circuit judges. Haines and Darrah, partners, sued McCormick. At the return term McCormick appeared, and filed his motion to dismiss the suit, because there was no sufficient bond for costs filed previous to the institution of the suit. This motion was overruled. The record shows a good bond for costs, and that it was filed on the same daj with the declaration. A motion was then filed to quash the writ, “because it was signed and sealed on the Sabbath day.” This motion was sustained, and it was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court,
Sebastian J.
There is but a single point to be decided in this case, and that is, did the court below err in quashing the writ, because it was tested on the Sabbath. We think it is clear that it did not. Our statute forbids the execution of process upon the Sabbath, unless in the special cases, it enumerates. This raises a strong presumption that ordinary process could not be tested on that day, but even if it could, no writ, or process, according to the principles of the common law, which we have adopted, could be tested, or any judicial act done upon the Sabbath, unless in cases…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hartley v. TunstallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stivers v. Pacific Building, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Waldron Manufacturing Corp. v. KincannonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- May v. JamesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1850