Aiken v. Gill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. H. F. Fairchild, Chancellor. Mrs. Beebe should have been made a party to the suit. She had an interest in the suit, and in the decree to be rehdered in it. And the general rule is that persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject matter of the suit, are to be made parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants. Story Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. H. F. Fairchild, Chancellor. Mrs. Beebe should have been made a party to the suit. She had an interest in the suit, and in the decree to be rehdered in it. And the general rule is that persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject matter of the suit, are to be made parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants. Story Eq. PL sec. 72; 73, 74, 138; Brodie vs. Skelton, 6 Eng. 120; Bailey vs. Inglee, 3 Paige Ch. R. 278.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Compton
The bill was brought by William Gill against Christopher C. and Thomas Aiken, to enforce the vendor’s lien for the purchase money of two lots of land, lying in the city of Little Rock, and charges that Mrs. Beebe sold the lots to Thomas Aiken for $300 he making his note to her in that sum, and she executing to him her covenant to make title upon payment of the purchase money; that, afterwards, Thomas Aiken conveyed the lots, by deed in foe simple, to Christopher C. Aiken, and that Mrs. Beebe assigned the note of Thomas Aiken to Francis Drew, who assigned it to the complainant. •
A demurrer to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. MannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906