Davis v. H. B. Claflin Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court in Chancery, Fort Smith District. Fdgar F. Bryant, Judg-e. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. H. B. Claflin Company brought suit against the Holmes Dry Goods Company, of Fort Smith, in this state, for $28,333.34, for which amount H. B. Claflin Company held the promissory notes, eight in number, of the Holmes Dry Goods Company, which had been transferred to it in due course of trade, before maturity, by one Daughaday.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court in Chancery, Fort Smith District. Fdgar F. Bryant, Judg-e. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. H. B. Claflin Company brought suit against the Holmes Dry Goods Company, of Fort Smith, in this state, for $28,333.34, for which amount H. B. Claflin Company held the promissory notes, eight in number, of the Holmes Dry Goods Company, which had been transferred to it in due course of trade, before maturity, by one Daughaday. H. B. Claflin Company sued out an attachment in said suit, and had it levied upon the stock of goods of the Holmes Dry Goods Company, at Fort Smith,…
1Dissent
Riddick, J.,
(dissenting.) I am of the opinion that the interveners have no right under the statute to contest the grounds of plaintiff’s attachment. It is not denied that the claim of plaintiff is based upon an honest debt. The affidavit showed cause for attachment upon a debt not due, and as this affidavit was not controverted by defendant, its allegations should be taken as true, not only against defendant, but against interveners also. Glaser v. Bank, 62 Ark. 171; Rice v. Adler, 71 Fed. 157.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Horton v. MercerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Glaser v. First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896