Hiner v. Hawkins
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Charleston District. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. 1. While the financial standing of a party to a transaction like this is material, yet one cannot be questioned as to his solvency and standing at a remote period, when the amount paid in money is so very small as in this case. It would be misleading—perhaps prejudicial. 2. The testimony of' Bytal should have been excluded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Charleston District. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. 1. While the financial standing of a party to a transaction like this is material, yet one cannot be questioned as to his solvency and standing at a remote period, when the amount paid in money is so very small as in this case. It would be misleading—perhaps prejudicial. 2. The testimony of' Bytal should have been excluded. It was immaterial, as a debtor has a right to prefer his creditors. 4 Ark. 304; 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 181; 52 Ark. 30; Burrill, Ass. (5 ed.) 215. 3. The testimony of B. C. Bocke was irrelevant and…
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
The appellant brought this action to recover a stock of goods, or its value, which had been seized by the appellee, as sheriff of Crawford county, by virtue of writs of attachment against the property of R. C. Lytal. The appellant claimed title to the goods by virtue of a purchase of and bill of sale for the same, executed by Lytal to him, on the 21st of November, 1888.
The appellee denied the title of the appellants, and alleged that the title to the goods was in Lytal; and that the alleged sale of them to the appellant was fraudulent and void as to creditors, etc.
i. Admissíbility of de-
There…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wood v. KeithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Dorrance v. McAlesterCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1898
- Coston v. McClellandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929