Legal Opinion

Lambie v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 4, 1929Published

1Opinion

ADDITIONAL OPINION.

Hart, C. J.

Counsel for appellants, in their motion for rehearing, insist that they have appealed from the foreclosure decree and that this constitutes a direct attack on it. Conceding, without deciding the question whether they have appealed from the foreclosure decree within the time prescribed by the statute, this does not help their case any. On cross-examination Mrs. G-. W. Lambie admitted that she had been duly served with summons in the case, and the record shows that fact. The record shows that Gr. E. Lambie, her son, was duly served with summons, and he admitted…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Karnes v. RameySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  2. Blanton Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Marked TreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  3. Minick v. RameySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  4. Fore v. ChenaultSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  5. Smith v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API