Hill v. Green
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; 1. The findings of the court are dearly against the preponderance of the evidence, except as to check 4. The burden was shifted to the appellee when payments were shown. 54 Pac. 932; 97 N. W. 1023; 142 Id. 1069; 66 S. W. 188; 82 S. E. 588-591. See, also, 72 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor; 1. The findings of the court are dearly against the preponderance of the evidence, except as to check 4. The burden was shifted to the appellee when payments were shown. 54 Pac. 932; 97 N. W. 1023; 142 Id. 1069; 66 S. W. 188; 82 S. E. 588-591. See, also, 72 Am. Dec. 619; 187 S. W. 446. 2. The appellants have conclusively proved pay-, ments aggregating $919.74 and the appellee has failed to show how he was given credit for them. Even if the burden of proof is on appellants, they have sustained the burden by a great preponderance of…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellees,- B. B. Green and J. E. Frisby, trustees, brought this suit in the Union Chancery Court against appellants, Frank C. Hill and Birdie S. Hill, on two notes and an open account secured by mortgages, praying for judgment and sale of the lands described in the mortgages to satisfy said judgment.
Appellants pleaded payment. On motion of the parties a master was appointed to state an accofint between them to ascertain whether the indebtedness had been paid.
The master reported that Frank C. Hill owed B. B. Green the sum of $1,354.82.. Exceptions were filed by appellants to the master’s…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Miles v. TeagueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Martin v. PribilSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Church v. ChurchSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1923
- Redwine v. Rohlff Lumber & Supply Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1939
- Peek v. BrickeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989