State v. Scoggin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from, the Dallas Circuit Court. CoveNant, determined in the Dallas Circuit Court, before the Hon. John Quillin, Judge, at the September term, 1849. Declaration, in substance, as follows : “ The State of Arkansas, by attorney, complains of Nathan M. Seoggin, of a plea of breach of covenant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Dallas Circuit Court. CoveNant, determined in the Dallas Circuit Court, before the Hon. John Quillin, Judge, at the September term, 1849. Declaration, in substance, as follows : “ The State of Arkansas, by attorney, complains of Nathan M. Seoggin, of a plea of breach of covenant. For that whereas heretofore, to wit: on the 29th day of November, A.D. 1845, at, &c., the said defendant made his certain covenant in writing, bearing date the day and year aforesaid, sealed with his seal, and now here to the Court shown, and thereby then and there covenanted, for value received, to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
Several decisions of this Court on kindred questions lead directly to a conclusion upon the question of jurisdiction raised in this case. The cases of Berry vs. Linton, 1 Ark. 252. Heilman vs. Martin, 2 Ark. 158. Wilson vs. Mason et al. 3 Ark. 494. More vs. Woodruff, 5 Ark. 214, and Collins vs. Woodruff, 4 Eng. 465, all show more or less distinctly that it is the amount prima facie recoverable at law in satisfaction of each separate and distinct contract sued on that is taken to be' the amount in controversy as a test of jurisdiction, in all cases except that class pointed out in Heilman vs.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Berry v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1838
- Heilman v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
- More v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843
- Mead v. DanielSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835