May v. Hutson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court. Jordan E. Cravens, Judge. Appellee in a justice’s court filed a schedule of the property he desired to claim as exempt from execution, under section 3006 of Mansf. Dig., but failed to allege that it contained a complete description of his property, or that he was a resident of the State. Upon appeal to the circuit court he offered to amend the schedule. The court refused to permit the amendment, but held the schedule sufficient.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court. Jordan E. Cravens, Judge. Appellee in a justice’s court filed a schedule of the property he desired to claim as exempt from execution, under section 3006 of Mansf. Dig., but failed to allege that it contained a complete description of his property, or that he was a resident of the State. Upon appeal to the circuit court he offered to amend the schedule. The court refused to permit the amendment, but held the schedule sufficient. The schedule was defective. It does not purport to contain all the debtor’s property. Mansf. Dig., sec. 3006; 41 Ark., 249. Nor…
1Per curiam
Amendmentof schedule, The petition for a supesedeas filed by the r * ... appellee is defective in two particulars, viz., it does not state that he is a resident of the State, or that it contains a description of all the defendant’s property, both real and personal. Without the allegations of both facts, it was insufficient to warrant the issuance of a supersedeas. Brown v. Peters, 53 Ark., 182. The petition is subject to amendment. If the facts justify it, both defects may be cured by amendment.
Reverse and remand for further proceedings.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. SwannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- LaMode Garment Co. v. Moore & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1935