Williams v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. The statutory proceeding for summary judgment must be strictly construed. 25 Ark. 353. The statute authorized the sheriff to pay the money to the attorneys of record, and he is not liable to summary judgment, unless he fails to pay the amount collected on execution, on demand of the plaintiff or his attorneys.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. The statutory proceeding for summary judgment must be strictly construed. 25 Ark. 353. The statute authorized the sheriff to pay the money to the attorneys of record, and he is not liable to summary judgment, unless he fails to pay the amount collected on execution, on demand of the plaintiff or his attorneys. Sand. & H. Dig., § 4252. There was nothing irregular in the employment of the attorneys. . The state, though the nominal, is not the real plaintiff. 39 Ark. 172; 30 Ark. 71; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 512, and notes, and note…
1Opinion
Opinion on Motion for Rehearing.
Delivered May 28, 1898.
Wood, J.
This appeal is from a judgment for $1,511.71, aggregate amount of principal and damages by way of penalty, recovered by appellee against appellant in a proceeding for summary judgment instituted by John T. Hicks, prosecuting attorney for the first judicial district. The facts forming the basis for the contention of the respective parties, and upon which the cause was heard, are as follows: The State of Arkansas recovered of Jno. B. Wilson et al. the sum of $9,410.43, of which, the sum of $8,100.38 belonged to the several school…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In Re PaschalSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Custer v. AgnewIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Gerson v. SlemonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
- School District No. 15. v. School District of WaldronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897