Coleman v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. The mortgage itself is the foundation of the dealings of the parties and the source of the indebtedness. Equity will regard the notes as having all been executed. 61 Ark. 266. The contract was usurious. 35 Ark. 52; 41 Ark. 331; 32 Ark. 346. As to plea of misjoinder of parties, see 44 Ark. 487.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
This case was decided by us some time ago (reported in 41 S. W. Rep. 49) but appellees showed to the court, after the decision was rendered, that the case had been prematurely submitted, because there had been no service of notice of the appeal and summons to them; and the judgment was thereupon set aside, and proper service of summons was served upon appellees as non-residents, and the cause after-wards redocketed and resubmitted. The facts involved are the same as when presented to us before, and no new issues of law are raised. With little additions, we adopt our former as the decision of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holiman v. HanceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rhodes v. CannonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Ingham Lumber Co. v. IngersollSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- First National Bank v. GlassSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Evans v. ThompsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1954
- Cannon v. HarmonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.