Swift & Co. v. Cox
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. It was error to overrule appellant’s motion to sustain tbe attachment on the ground that appellees had failed to file affidavit or answer under oath denying the grounds of attachment as provided in sections 414, 416, Kirby's Digest, and in permitting appellees, after the trial was in progress, to file pleadings when they had been waived, lb.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. It was error to overrule appellant’s motion to sustain tbe attachment on the ground that appellees had failed to file affidavit or answer under oath denying the grounds of attachment as provided in sections 414, 416, Kirby's Digest, and in permitting appellees, after the trial was in progress, to file pleadings when they had been waived, lb. The attachment should have been sustained when appellees failed to file their affidavit or answer under oath. Ib.; 90 Ark. 454. 2. It was error to allow the exemptions…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant sued appellees, J. E. Cox and J. A. Ray, co-partners doing business as Cox & Ray and operating a butcher-shop in Fort Smith, before a justice of the peace, on an open account for $290, and at the same time sued out an attachment against the fixtures and goods on hand, on the ground that they were about to dispose of these partnership assets with the fraudulent intent of cheating their creditors. The possession of the attached property was returned to Cox upon the execution of the following bond:
“We undertake to pay to the plaintiff, Swift & Company, such sums of money, not exceeding…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Richardson v. Adler, Goldman & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Texas & St. Louis Railway v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Birmingham v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Porch v. Arkansas Milling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Meddock v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ford v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- McLerkin v. SchillingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936