Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Jones v. Hempel

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 18, 1994No. 93-1216Published

1ConcurrenceTom Glaze, Justice

I concur. It has long been settled law in Arkansas that a partial payment will revive a debt barred by limitations, or form a new point from which the statute will begin to run. Johnson v. Spangler, 176 Ark. 328, 2 S.W.2d 1089 (1928) (this court held that a payment made after a note was barred revived the indebtedness and a new [limitations] period of five years began to run from the date of payment). In McNeil v. Rowland, 198 Ark. 1094, 132 S.W.2d 370 (1939), this court further stated that, where it has been established that sums of money were paid by a debtor to a creditor, the presumption…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Johnson v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  2. McNeill v. RowlandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API