McLeran v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL EROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. IIon. John 'Whytock, Circuit Judge. First, The .Code does not authorize a recovery upon any statement of facts, which, before its adoption, did not authorize a recovery in some form of action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. IIon. John 'Whytock, Circuit Judge. First, The .Code does not authorize a recovery upon any statement of facts, which, before its adoption, did not authorize a recovery in some form of action. See Hill, for use of Ylintersmith vs. Barrett, etc., 14 B. Monroe, p. 84, 86. Second, The body of the petition should show who complains, and if partners, to describe and name each partner, etc., as at common law. 1 Chittg PL, 257-264 ; Stephens’ PL, 302-441; Gould’s PI. 77-8. Third, The simple filing of the note, sued on, does not dispense with any necessary…
1Opinion of the CourtGregg, J.
The appellees brought their suit, upon a promissory note, against the appellant, and Marquis L. Andrews, as the administrator of James O. Gill, to the last November term of the Pulaski Circuit Court.
The appellant, and Andrews, as administrator, appeared and filed a joint demurrer, and Andrews filed a separate demurrer.
The court sustained Andrews’ demurrer and the plaintiffs elected to discontinue as to him.. The court, overruled the appellant’s demurrer, and he rested and final judgment was rendered against him, and he appealed to this court and obtained a supersedeas.
This is a suit at law…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Scott v. Vulcan Iron Works Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Simpson & Webb Furniture Co. v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Coleman v. BercherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Adams v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Christensen v. ChristensenUtah Supreme Court · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.