Vaughan v. Hinkle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Independence 'Circuit Court; Dene II. Coleman, Judge; 1. This litigation grows out of the case in 131 Ark. 197 which was reversed. "When the case was retried, plaintiff Vaughan recovered judgment, which carried the costs of the case, and Vaughan is entitled to pay for the care and feed of the cattle.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Independence 'Circuit Court; Dene II. Coleman, Judge; 1. This litigation grows out of the case in 131 Ark. 197 which was reversed. "When the case was retried, plaintiff Vaughan recovered judgment, which carried the costs of the case, and Vaughan is entitled to pay for the care and feed of the cattle. The effect of the decision of, the circuit court was that the sheriff was legally in pos: session of the cattle, and, being legally in possession, he could make a binding contract for care and feed without procuring an order 'of court in advance. The order directing- him to take the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The present appeal is a continuation of the case of Vaughan v. Hinkle,- reported in 131 Ark. at page 197. As appears from the opinion on the former appeal, the original suit was instituted by Vaughan to collect from Hinkle the purchase price of a sum of money due upon the sale of one hundred and six head of cattle. At the original trial the court held that there was no legal evidence of a sale and directed a verdict in Hinkle’s favor. The court also held that the attachment which had been issued should be quashed because no bond had been given by the plaintiff. We reversed the judgment in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Breece-White Manufacturing Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926