Barber v. Sager
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The decree should -be set aside, under Kirby’s Digest, section 4431, subdivision.4. Appellant’s showing of fraud or mistake is complete. Appellant was deprived of his day in court. 128 Ark. 50. An act of the court should prejudice no man. Broom, Legal Maxims 99. The act of the court deprived appellant of his right to be heard by the court to which he had .applied for relief.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The decree should -be set aside, under Kirby’s Digest, section 4431, subdivision.4. Appellant’s showing of fraud or mistake is complete. Appellant was deprived of his day in court. 128 Ark. 50. An act of the court should prejudice no man. Broom, Legal Maxims 99. The act of the court deprived appellant of his right to be heard by the court to which he had .applied for relief. It closed the-door of justice to him. 128 Ark. (Montague v. Craddock). Any act of -the court, however innocent, which deprives parties of their rights…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was brought by appellant Barber for the purpose of enforcing the specific performance of a contract to convey land and for vacating a decree previously pronounced in another suit between Barber and William Sager and his wife under the provisions of section 4431 of Kirby’s digest. This previous suit had itself been brought for the purpose of compelling the Sagers to specifically perform a contract to convey land to Barber.
The first complaint against appellee Sager and his wife was filed on June 24, 1917. William Sager filed an answer to this complaint in vacation on July 14, 1917,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Luttrell v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Stewart v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
- Van Sickle v. StroudCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Harlow v. RylandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951