Chase v. Carney
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.. B. F. Fee, Special Judge. 1. The evidence shows conclusively that the claim is barred by limitation. The payments made by Chase to Bearden were not intended as payments on the $200 claimed, and hence were not acknowledgements of the debt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.. B. F. Fee, Special Judge. 1. The evidence shows conclusively that the claim is barred by limitation. The payments made by Chase to Bearden were not intended as payments on the $200 claimed, and hence were not acknowledgements of the debt. Wood on Lim. p. 221; lb. 225 ; 5 Ark. 551; 9 id. 455 ; 18 id. 521; 20 id. 171. 2. The court erred in refusing to admit as evidence the deposition of Stone and the written agreement referred to in his deposition. They strongly corroborated Chase on material matters in issue.
1Opinion of the CourtBattee, J.
B. J. Carney instituted this action against G. W. Chase on the 8th day of February, 1893. He alleged that he loaned to Chase the sum of $200; that Chase returned to him, of this amount, $40 on the 27th of May, 1890, and the same amount on the 5th of July, 1890; and that there remains due and unpaid the sum of $146.90.
Chase denied that he was indebted to Carney in any sum whatever, and alleged that'plaintiff’s cause of action did not accrue three years before the bringing of this suit.
The issues in the case were tried by a jury. The evidence adduced at the trial, as stated in appellant’s…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Johnson v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Baker-Matthews Manufacturing Co. v. Grayling Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Trent v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Young v. SorensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Less v. ArndtSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.