Moore v. Emmert
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error from Douglas District Court. . Action for trespass in cutting down and carrying away wood and timber. The defense pleaded, in addition to a general denial, was, that the supposed trespasses were done under and by the authority of one Levi K. Moore, who was the executor under the will and an heir-at-law of Elias N. Moore, deceased, and who was acting as agent for all the plaintiffs, and was duly authorized so to do; and that defendant had fully paid said agent for all…
Read the full summary
Error from Douglas District Court. . Action for trespass in cutting down and carrying away wood and timber. The defense pleaded, in addition to a general denial, was, that the supposed trespasses were done under and by the authority of one Levi K. Moore, who was the executor under the will and an heir-at-law of Elias N. Moore, deceased, and who was acting as agent for all the plaintiffs, and was duly authorized so to do; and that defendant had fully paid said agent for all wood and timber taken, and for the use of the land described in the petition; and, moreover, that the supposed trespasses…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
There are four assignments of error in this case, viz.: First, In granting leave to defendant to file his answer, January 22d, 1876; second, refusing leave to plaintiffs to verify reply; third, refusing to set aside the referee’s report; and, fourth, entering judgment for defendant in error, whereas, according to the law and the facts, it should have been for the plaintiffs.
I. The original petition was filed September 9th, 1874; to this petition a demurrer was filed, October 6th, 1874. On January 18th, 1875, an answer was filed,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v. CrumpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Spencer v. J. Turney & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897