Ferguson v. State Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. The facts of this case are stated by the Court. The objection to the proceeding is that as the Bank sued all and one was released on a plea in bar going to the whole action, she could proceed no further as to the others; and as one was discharged the Bank could not recover all the costs in the case from the others.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. The facts of this case are stated by the Court. The objection to the proceeding is that as the Bank sued all and one was released on a plea in bar going to the whole action, she could proceed no further as to the others; and as one was discharged the Bank could not recover all the costs in the case from the others. Frazier et al. vs. State Bank, (4 Ark. 509.) Hutchings et al. vs. R. E. Bank, (4 Ark. 517.) Beebe vs. R. E. Bank, (4 Ark. 546.) Silli-vant & Thorn vs. Reardon, (5 Ark. 140.) Ashley vs. Hyde & Goodrich, (1 Eng. 92.) Pleasants vs. State Bank,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Walker
The bank instituted suit against Ferguson, Reed, Lewis and Red-man upon a promissory note for $4450. The defendant Redman plead non est factum; Ferguson appeared and interposed no plea; Lewis and Reed, though served with process made default and judgment of nil dicit and by default was taken against them. The issue on the plea of non est factum, interposed by Redman, was submitted to the court and decided in favor of Redman: whereupon the court rendered judgment in his favor, in discharge of the action and for costs by him in his defence expended, and against the defendants, Ferguson, Reed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hartness v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Cleaton v. ChamblissSupreme Court of Virginia · 1827
- Ivey v. GambleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Andrus v. WaringNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Frazier v. Bank of the StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842