Stuart v. Peay
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal jrom Hempstead Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. Abner A. Stith, Circuit Judge. It is proved that the note upon which the original judgment was obtained had been long previously satisfied and extinguished by the payment of a State bond and the execution of a new note, which were received as a complete extinguishment and payment of the original note.
Read the full summary
Appeal jrom Hempstead Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. Abner A. Stith, Circuit Judge. It is proved that the note upon which the original judgment was obtained had been long previously satisfied and extinguished by the payment of a State bond and the execution of a new note, which were received as a complete extinguishment and payment of the original note. See State Bank vs. McGuire, 14 Ark. 533; Grade vs. Sanford. 4 Eng. 232. The failure of the Bank, or its officers, to present the second note to the administrators within two years after the grant of letters, forever extinguished the debt,…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice English
The material facts in this case are as follows:
On the 28th June, 1848, the Trustees of the Real Estate Bank commenced an action in the Hempstead Circuit Court, by filing a declaration and issuing a writ, against Joseph Stuart, upon a stock note executed by him to the Trustees, 1st January, 1844, for $4,111 00, etc.
The writ was returned, without service, by order of George Hill, one of the Trustees.
At the May term, 1849, the death of Hill was suggested, the cause directed to proceed in the name of his survivors, an alias writ ordered, and the case continued. The writ was issued, and returned…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sewell v. ReedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- McEuen v. WakenightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930