Bourland v. Baker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith Bisect; Paul Little, Judge; i. James Bourland, the husband, is not liable for the torts; of his wife committed in his absence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith Bisect; Paul Little, Judge; i. James Bourland, the husband, is not liable for the torts; of his wife committed in his absence. Since the marked woman’s act of 1915, the husband is no longer liable. ^02 Ark. 351; 64 Id. 381; 44 Id. 401. All these cases are’ tksed on the law prior to 1912. The act of 1915 strike; down every reason for the ruling that the husband tas liable. 124 Ark. 167; 145 N. Y. S. 708; 65 111. 129. |ee also 94 Pae. 36; 37 S. W. 138; 99 N. W. 818; 44 Paq 833; 21 Cyc. 1352, note 86; 65 N. E. 770; 140 Pac. 1022; 49 Atl. 889. The…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellee instituted suit agaist appellants in the Sebastian Circuit Court, Port Snbh District, to recover $11,000, on account of an injury 'eceived by him through the alleged negligent operalon of an automobile by appellant, Queen Bourland, wiffof appellant, James Bourland. The allegations of negligence in the complaint consisted, first, in driving theaar at a high and dangerous rate of speed; second, in driing it on the left, instead of the right-hand, side of the street, in violation of a city ordinance; third, in drivi;g° it without giving the proper warning or keeping the pupor lookout…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fitzpatrick v. OwensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by13 opinions
- Christensen v. McCann Et Ux.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1929
- Curtis v. AshworthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Meeks v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
- Harlow v. RylandDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1948
- Johnson v. NewmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.