Fondren v. Norton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; The court’s declarations of law are erroneous. If the deposit of the money was in effect the giving of a retaining bond with W. A. Fondren as surety, which is not admitted, still J. W. Fondren would not thereby be cut off from the right to controvert the existence of grounds of attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; The court’s declarations of law are erroneous. If the deposit of the money was in effect the giving of a retaining bond with W. A. Fondren as surety, which is not admitted, still J. W. Fondren would not thereby be cut off from the right to controvert the existence of grounds of attachment. Kirby’s Digest, § 372. And in no event could judgment be rendered against W. A. Fondren, the surety on the bond, in this action. 36 Ark. 91. Even under the court’s declaration of law the money deposit became, not a retaining bond, but an…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Norton, being the owner of a promissory note executed by J. W. Fondren to B. D. Hatcher for $40 of the purchase money owing for one black stallion, named Black Hawk, brought an action on the same against J. W. Fondren before a justice of the peace of St. Francis County. A summons for the defendant was issued, with order indorsed thereon, directing the constable to take possession of the horse and hold him subject to the order of the court. The constable found the horse in possession of W. A. Fondren, and served the writ on him on the 9th day of January, 1906, the day it was issued, and took…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mayfield v. CreamerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rogers v. Tri-State Motor Sales Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924