Legal Opinion

Beebe v. Real Estate Bank

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 15, 1842Published

' This was an action of assumpsit, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in November, 1840, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the circuit judges. The Bank sued Roswell Beebe, William E. Woodruff, and Peter T. Crutchfield, on a bill of exchange, and the common counts.

Read the full summary

' This was an action of assumpsit, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in November, 1840, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the circuit judges. The Bank sued Roswell Beebe, William E. Woodruff, and Peter T. Crutchfield, on a bill of exchange, and the common counts. The cause of action, as set forth in the first count of the declaration, is a bill of exchange, drawn by Woodruff in favorof Crutchfield, upon Beebe, and accepted by the latter, to whom it; was subsequently endorsed by Crutchfield, and by whom it was endorsed to the Bank; and, being unpaid at maturity, payment was duly…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Ringo, C. J.

Several questions are presented by the record and assignment of errors; the most important of which, as we conceive, arises out of the adjudication upon the demurrers of the plaintiff to the pleading of the defendants below, which, according to the well settled rales of law, imposes upon us the necessity of considering not only the validity of the pleas, but also the sufficiency of the declaration, and pronouncing judgment against the party whose pleading exhibits the first fatal defect. We shall, therefore, in the first place, confine our inquiries to the first count…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. MINOR v. the Mechanics Bank of AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. United States v. LefflerSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
  3. Bank of Genessee v. FieldNew York Supreme Court · 1839

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API