Smith v. Davis
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; Charles W. Smith; Judge; i. The circuit court had no jurisdiction if the justice had none. 77 Ark. 234; 44 Id. 377. The justice had no jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was over $300. Kirby’s Digest, § § 4562, 4565, 4650. There was only one suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; Charles W. Smith; Judge; i. The circuit court had no jurisdiction if the justice had none. 77 Ark. 234; 44 Id. 377. The justice had no jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was over $300. Kirby’s Digest, § § 4562, 4565, 4650. There was only one suit. The amount claimed determines the jurisdiction. 66 Ark. 346; 18 Minn. 216; 24 Cyc. 461; 48 W. Va. 389; 20 Id. 464; 101 N. C. 184; 94 Id. 43; lb. 72. '2. The justice had (no jurisdiction to order a sale of personal property, amounting to $1,500, nor to order the proceeds distributed, nor to administer…
1Opinion of the CourtHiuu, C. J.
Davis & Warnock sued D. R. Smith upon four notes in a justice-of-the-peace court. They were for $200 each, and represented the consideration for the purchase of a sawmill outfit sold to Smith by the Elmore Dumber Company. In the contract the title To the property sold was reserved in the Elmore Dumber Company until all the notes should be paid, and, on the failure of Smith to make any payment when due, the lumber company was to have the right to take immediate possession of the property.
The Elmore Dumber Company assigned these notes to Davis & Warnock. In bringing suit they filed what they…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brooks v. HornbergerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Davis v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Soda Fountain Co. v. BattleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Modern Laundry v. DilleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Taylor v. MaloneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913