Brooks v. Hornberger
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; William R. Moose, Judge; 1. There were ten of the notes, each for an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. They were separate causes of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; William R. Moose, Judge; 1. There were ten of the notes, each for an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. They were separate causes of action. The amount of each separate claim or contract which one person holds against another, and not the aggregate amount, determines the jurisdiction. 1 Ark. 252; lb. 275; 3 Ark. 494 1 5 Ark. 34; 9 Ark. 463; 35 Ark. 287; 17 Ark. 385; 18 Ark. 249; 24 Ark. 177; 34 Ark. 188; 57 Ark. 531. 1. The notes and mortgage, taken together, constitute the contract, and are each a part, and explanatory, of the…
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
Hornberger was indebted to Brooks, and evidenced the same by ten promissory notes, each for the sum of $50. The first one fell due December x, 1903, and one fell due each month thereafter. Each note recited that it was one of a series of ten notes, and that, upon default in payment of any one on the option of the holder, all became due and payable; and the notes further recited that in case of default the mortgage securing the notes should become enforceable. A chattel ’ mortgage secured the notes.
In January, 1904, default having been made on two of the notes, suit was filed before a justice…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Berry v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1838
- Paris Mercantile Co. v. HunterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by9 opinions
- Winer v. Bank of BlythevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- American Soda Fountain Co. v. BattleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Director General of Railroads v. WilfordSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
- Modern Laundry v. DilleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Smith v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.