Legal Opinion

Breckenridge v. Weber Dry Goods Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 2, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

There was no presentation of the demanded to the administratrix for allowance as required by law. C. M. Digest 108 and 110. The statement of accounts is not itemized as required by 100 C. M. Digest. To itemize is to state in items or by particulars. 42 N.E. 600; Words Phrases Vol. 4, p. 3797; 18 So. 919; 128 F. 111. The affidavit appended to the statement is wholly insufficient. 97 Ark. 548. 103, 104 C. M. Digest,69 Ark. 68; 146 Ark. 321; 105 Ark. 98. The statement of account and affidavit were jurisdictional and not subject to amendment at the time of the trial. 48 Ark. 361;153 Ark. 77; 65…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Coats v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
  2. Ahern v. Board of Improvement District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
  3. Crawford v. Ozark InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Eddy v. LoydSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  5. Ware v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Souter v. FlySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  2. Miller v. FearisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API