Pope v. Tunstall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. This was an action of debt, instituted bj defendants in error, as partners under the name, style, and firm of Tunstall and Waring against W. F. Pope and James W. Dunahay, upon a writing obligatory bearing date 19th of May, 1838, for ‡ 1,109 35. Pope pleaded nil debet, and a second plea of accord and satisfaction, in which he alleged that “ after the execution and delivery of the certain writing obligatory of the said Dunahay and the said Pope,…
Read the full summary
Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. This was an action of debt, instituted bj defendants in error, as partners under the name, style, and firm of Tunstall and Waring against W. F. Pope and James W. Dunahay, upon a writing obligatory bearing date 19th of May, 1838, for ‡ 1,109 35. Pope pleaded nil debet, and a second plea of accord and satisfaction, in which he alleged that “ after the execution and delivery of the certain writing obligatory of the said Dunahay and the said Pope, to the said Tunstall and Waring, in the declaration of the said plaintiff mentioned, on the 25th day of January, 1839,…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, Judge
Not deeming it necessary to discuss the principles upon which pleas are stricken out by the court, we will consider the proceeding in the same light as if the pleadings had come up on demurrer.
The defendant in error contends that in debt upon bond, it is ,no plea that the plaintiffs accepted a new bond in satisfaction of the old one, for that is no satisfaction, either actual or present; and refers to various authorities in support of his position. If he has reference only to cases where there is a simple exchange of bonds, or obligations, his argument cannot, in truth, be controverted, for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Le Page v. McCreaNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Booth v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Seymour v. MinturnNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Blinn v. ChesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1812
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dreyfus v. RobertsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Martin v. State Ex Rel. Saline CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Lyle v. Federal Union Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Grimmett v. OusleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Biscoe v. SandefurSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.