Texas & St. Louis Railway v. Hall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Mitchel, Circuit Judge. The court erred in striking out the answer of defendant and in affirming the judgment of the justice without a hearing. (85 Ark., 1^5; 86 lb., 501; 1$ lb., J¡A5) The cause should have been tried de ñoco, and defendant had the right to answer or go to trial and have a hearing without any answer whatever. See cases supra.
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
Hall sued the railroad in replevin for two bales of cotton before a justice of the peace. There was a trial and judgment for the plaintiff. The justice made no record of the nature of the defense made by the railroad company, and in the Circuit Court, on appeal, in response to a rule on him to amend his record, he stated in writing that the railroad had filed no written answer but appeared on the trial day and denied the plaintiffs title and right of possession to the cotton, and laid claim to the property in its own right. He stated further that there was no answer to the affidavit for the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. BryantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Armstrong v. HarrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
- Crockett Motor Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Bunch v. PottsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Meddock v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.