Legal Opinion

Webb v. Jones

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 15, 1840Published

Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action instituted by Prescott and Jones against Webb, by petition and summons, in the Circuit Court of Chicot county. The petition stated that the plaintiffs were the legal owners of a bond against Albert W. Webb, and set out a bond, verbatim, signed “A. W. Webb.”

Read the full summary

Error to Chicot Circuit Court. This was an action instituted by Prescott and Jones against Webb, by petition and summons, in the Circuit Court of Chicot county. The petition stated that the plaintiffs were the legal owners of a bond against Albert W. Webb, and set out a bond, verbatim, signed “A. W. Webb.” At the term to which the summons was returnable, the defendant below appeared, and moved the court to dismiss the suit, on the ground that no sufficient bond and security for costs had been filed by the plaintiffs before the commencement of the suit, as required by law, they being…

1Opinion of the CourtRjngo, Chief Justice

In the cases of Means vs. Cromwell and Guthrey, 1 Ark. 247, and Clark vs. Gibson as well as some other cases, decided by this court, the failure or omission of a non-resident plaintiff, to file a bond with security for the costs of suit, before he institutes suit in the courts of this State, is held to be matter in abatement only, of which advantage may be taken in the course of the proceeding, at such time only, as of any other legal disability of the plaintiff to sue; but this, as well as every other matter in abatement, existing at the time of pleading to the action in bar thereof, is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Means v. CromwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1838
  2. Dyer v. HatchSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1839

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

Powered by the Exa API