Peeples v. Hayley-Beine & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Chancery iQourt; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. Appellant’s demurrer should have been sustained. As agains-t a third party, the trustee is the proper person to bring the action. 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 565; 22 Enc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Chancery iQourt; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. Appellant’s demurrer should have been sustained. As agains-t a third party, the trustee is the proper person to bring the action. 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 565; 22 Enc. PI. & Pr. 158; 60 Ala. 435; 50 la. 515; 66 Ark. 400; Id. 550; 75 Ark. 288. 2. Appellee’s evidence is not sufficient to show that appellant received an amount in excess of what was due him for rent and advancements made, which was a prior li-en under the statute. The burden was on appellee. Kirby’s Dig. § •§ 5032-3; 70 Ark. 79. 1. The demurrer was general, and not on…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellee, a domestic corporation engaged in the mercantile business, held a mortgage executed by one Sawyer on a crop -of cotton grown during the year 1903 on land owned by appellant Peeples. Sawye-r was appellant’s tenant, and appellant furnished him supplies of money and merchandise to enable him to make and gather the crop. The crop grown on the place was delivered to appellant by the tenant, and he sold the same, applying the proceeds to the payment of his account for advances. Appellee brought this suit in equity against appellant to recover the proceeds of the crop, alleging that it had…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Vaughan v. ScreetonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- West v. E. V. Cook Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923