Legal Opinion

King v. Dickinson-Reed-Randerson Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 2, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). The chancery court did not err in refusing to set aside the decree of foreclosure on the ground that Henry King and wife had not been properly served by publication of warning order. The foreclosure suit was brought by Dickinson-Reed-Randerson Company, a corporation.' In the affidavit for a warning order, and in the warning order itself, that corporation is named as plaintiff. The proof of publication of the warning order names the plaintiff as Dickinson-Reed-Henderson Company, a corporation. Hence it is claimed that there was no valid constructive service…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brine v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Parker v. DacresSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. Wallace v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  4. Fiddyment v. BatemanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  5. Moreland v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Blanton Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Marked TreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  2. Adams v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  3. Ragland v. RhoadsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API