Munday v. Collier
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Randolph Circuit Court. J. W. Butler, Judge. This was an action at law brought by the administrator of Mary Munday, on a note for $500, given to her by her husband, Daniel Munday. The latter answered, setting up that at the time the note was executed he and the payee were husband .and wife, and also that it had been satisfied by various payments; which are stated in detail.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Randolph Circuit Court. J. W. Butler, Judge. This was an action at law brought by the administrator of Mary Munday, on a note for $500, given to her by her husband, Daniel Munday. The latter answered, setting up that at the time the note was executed he and the payee were husband .and wife, and also that it had been satisfied by various payments; which are stated in detail. The evidence showed that the note was given for money, which the defendant borrowed from his wife, and that they separated on the day it was executed, and • did not live together at any subsequent time,…
1Per curiam
Husband and Wife:Contracts: Practice. The question of the application of the sums claimed to have been paid by the defendant, Munday, to jjjs wjfg) was fairly submitted to the jury; and they found that the amounts, if paid, were not made as payments on the note, and their verdict is conclusive.
Whether the note constituted a legal liability or not, it was unquestionably an equitable claim against the husband. The error, if any, in bringing the action at law, was waived by the defendant’s failure to move a transfer to the proper docket. Organ v. Ry., 51 Ark., 235.
Affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Allen-West Commission Co. v. GrumblesDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1908