Jones v. Ainell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lawrence Chancery Court, Eastern District; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor; The chancellor erred in holding the judgment void on collateral attack, as the original judgment recited, that the affidavit and bond for attachment were properly filed. 79 Ark. 16; 101 Id. 390; 105 Id. 5. The judgment was in due form and recites all jurisdictional facts necessary and is valid on its face and can not be attacked collaterally.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Chancery Court, Eastern District; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor; The chancellor erred in holding the judgment void on collateral attack, as the original judgment recited, that the affidavit and bond for attachment were properly filed. 79 Ark. 16; 101 Id. 390; 105 Id. 5. The judgment was in due form and recites all jurisdictional facts necessary and is valid on its face and can not be attacked collaterally. No proper affidavit for attachment was filed before the issue of the attachment. The attachment was void and the court had no jurisdiction.' Kirby’s Digest, § 345;…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
J. Bruce Ainell instituted this action in the chancery court against Chas. Jones to set aside and declare void as a cloud upon his title, the judgment and subsequent proceedings in an attachment suit instituted in the Lawrence circuit court, Eastern District, wherein Charles Jones was plaintiff and Geo. M. Neterer and Marguerite Neterer were defendants. The material facts are as follows:
Charley Jones instituted, a suit by attachment in' the Lawrence circuit court for the Eastern District; against Geo. M. Neterer and Marguerite Neterer alleging that they were nonresidents of the State of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boyd v. RoaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Crittenden Lumber Co. v. McDougalSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Osceola Land Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Henry Wrape Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Carwell v. DennisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hooper v. WistSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Oil Fields Corporation v. DashkoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Stumpff v. Louann Provision Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Road Improvement District No. 4 v. BallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.