Pike v. Underhill's
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead, Circuit Court in Chcmcery. Hon. Lew B. OiiseN, Circuit Judge. The decree assigning dower to the widow in each specific tract of land, is disastrous to her; and Pike is injured by it because it is an unwise restriction, a clog and incumbrance upon the advantageous sale of his share or interest in the land. It is quite plain that Pike and Underhill entered into a land speculation in partnership.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead, Circuit Court in Chcmcery. Hon. Lew B. OiiseN, Circuit Judge. The decree assigning dower to the widow in each specific tract of land, is disastrous to her; and Pike is injured by it because it is an unwise restriction, a clog and incumbrance upon the advantageous sale of his share or interest in the land. It is quite plain that Pike and Underhill entered into a land speculation in partnership. Their agreement constituted them partners quoad the proposed land investment. See on this subject, 3 Kenfs Com., p. 38, et seq., and notes cmd oases cited. Smiths'1 Mfr. v. Garth,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice English
On the 28th of November, 1852, George W. Underhill, of Crit-tenden county, and Albert Bike, of Pulaski county, entered into a written contract, by which it was agreed between them, in substance, that they would jointly enter and locate such swamp and overflowed lands of the state, south of Bed river, as Pike should select, and furnish the numbers thereof, to the quantity of at least 20,000 acres, and as much more as Underhill might be able to obtain scrip to enter.
That the lands should be selected and entered in certain townships mentioned, and in other townships contiguous thereto.
That the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Arbaugh v. WestSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909