Jurisdiction Citation Name Text Reports Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 72 (Oct. 1, 1829) Parker v. Lewis Lewis had his own negroes sold, allowed a credit for the amount for which they sold, and Parker complains of it! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 F. Cas. 1042 (Jan. 1, 1833) Standefer v. Dowlin In his affidavit, the defend^ ant states, “that he is Informed arid believes! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 21 (Jan. 1, 1837) Taylor v. Governor CONWAY,! 3 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 29 (July 1, 1837) Bennett v. Engles Lacy, Judge, delivered! 1 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 50 (Jan. 1, 1838) Gilbreath v. Kuykendall The service of a summons shall be by reading the writ, declaration, “petition, or statement, to the defendant, or delivering him a copy “thereof, or leaving such copy at his usual place of abode with some “person of the'family above the age of fifteen years, and informing “such person of'the contents thereof; such service to be at least “ fifteen days before the return day thereof,” " Tirif! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 66 (Jan. 1, 1838) Pope ex rel. Reed v. Latham Fiat, justicia, ruat caelum ! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 82 (Jan. 1, 1838) Ellis v. Brown The motion to dismiss! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 186 (July 1, 1838) Andrews v. Fenter From this decree, the respondeat prayed an appeal-— Admitting that a court of chance y has jurisdiction of the cause, (which is by no means conceded in this case,) the cuestión then mi-ses, does the bill upon its face show any equity, or are its ¡satería! 0 Link
Illinois 2 Ill. 530 (Dec. 1, 1838) Miller v. Bledsoe This would lead to much confusion and 'complexity in pleading In order) therefore, to enable an endorsee of a note to bring an action in! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 349 (Jan. 1, 1839) Gov. ex rel. Lyon v. Evans Upon non assumpsit, the plaintiff was nonsuit, and the question was, if he should pay costs'! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 349 (Jan. 1, 1839) Gov. ex rel. Lyon v. Evans Why! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 391 (Jan. 1, 1839) Keatts v. Rector Lord Redesdale remarks that a i! 1 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 391 (Jan. 1, 1839) Keatts v. Rector The authorities are clear and conclusive upon the question! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 513 (Jan. 1, 1839) State v. Ashley Not to give to the clause we are considering a prohibitory and limited sense, is to render it wholly! 0 Link
Illinois 3 Ill. 79 (Dec. 1, 1839) Field v. People It has been asked with emphasis, in the argument, to which department of the government does the Secretary belq has been replied by those who propounded the not to the executive ! 0 Link
Illinois 3 Ill. 22 (Dec. 1, 1839) Towell v. Gatewood In an action by the pur- : chaser, to recover the purchase money paid or damages on the { sale of any article or commodity, on the ground that it is inferior \ in quality to what it was represented to be, it is necessary to al- ! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 494 (July 1, 1840) Auditor v. Davies The main question in this cause is, did the court below rightfully exercise jurisdiction in the premises! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 375 (July 1, 1840) Bank of Arkansas v. Clark Ringo, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court: The only question presented by the record is whether the declaration is sufficient in law; or was the demurrer thereto rightly sustained! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 315 (July 1, 1840) Wilson v. Royston It is true, that the plaintiff must show a genera! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 415 (July 1, 1840) Jones v. Buzzard The recital of the affidavit in the writ may be regarded as part and parce! 0 Link
Illinois 4 Ill. 26 (July 1, 1841) Maus v. Worthing You may hang a man on his own confession, but yet he shall not pay a debt of twenty dollars evidenced by his note of hand or bond, on the same kind of proof! 0 Link
Illinois 4 Ill. 74 (July 1, 1841) Calhoun v. Wright To which the plaintiff replied, by way of estopple, that the two promissory notes of defendant were executed to the plaintiff! 0 Link
Illinois 4 Ill. 127 (Dec. 1, 1841) Sawyer v. City of Alton The bill of except! 0 Link
Arkansas 4 Ark. 293 (July 1, 1842) Smith v. Yell We shall pass by the irregularities in entering up the decree, and! 0 Link
Illinois 4 Ill. 465 (Dec. 1, 1842) Edwards v. Pope All the parties in interest either presented the petition, j or they expressly consented, and it was referred to two judges tdj hear the proofs, and draw a bill, which was again referred to a! 0 Link
Illinois 4 Ill. 380 (Dec. 1, 1842) Ballance v. Samuel A contrary doctrine would enable a defendant in any suit, before service, to come in and dismiss it on the same ground, for want of jurisdiction! 0 Link
Illinois 5 Ill. (Scam) 96 (Dec. 1, 1842) Henshaw v. Bryant He now swears that the goods which are valued in the schedule at $4,000, were in fact worth but $400, and the debts which are set down at $2,500, only amounted to $300 or $400 that were collectable, and yet this extraordinary contrast is sworn to by this witness, for the purpose of convicting Burlingame of fraud in making out the schedule ; and still he swears that he believed at the time that the schedule contained the truth! 0 Link
Illinois 5 Ill. (Scam) 159 (Dec. 1, 1842) Reece v. Darby An application for the extension of the time for hearing is addressed to the sound discretion of the court! 0 Link
Illinois 5 Ill. (Scam) 202 (Dec. 1, 1843) Doyle v. Teas Should we now postpone Doyle, because Munson is an innocent purchaser subsequent to the date of his agreement, then Munson would have to be postponed in his turn, should some one appear to-morrow, and produce a deed executed between the 26th of May and filie 26th of June, 1835, because, he would be a subsequent bona fide purchaser! 0 Link
Illinois 5 Ill. (Scam) 309 (Dec. 1, 1843) Brooks ex rel. McDougall v. McKinney He says, “ It is a well settled rule that a real party to a suit cannot be compelled to testify, although! 0 Link
Illinois 5 Ill. (Scam) 580 (Dec. 1, 1843) Frink v. Phelps Under any other circumstances it is of no consequence to the defendant in whom the title is for the penalty is incurred by the trespass, let the title to the land be in whom it may, except in the instance named! 0 Link
Arkansas 5 Ark. 551 (July 1, 1844) Trustees R. E. Bank v. Hartfield To this there was a demurrer sustained, and whether the fact replied! 0 Link
Arkansas 5 Ark. 708 (July 1, 1844) Brock v. Saxton But this does not make it a judicial record or proof in the cause! 0 Link
Illinois 6 Ill. 46 (Dec. 1, 1844) Hays v. Borders But it is insisted by those who put a' different construction! 0 Link
Illinois 6 Ill. 503 (Dec. 1, 1844) Sisk v. Smith To accept would be to bar her dower, while to refuse, would be to entitle her to demand it only after the payment of her husband’s debts, and thus forever to exclude her from it, thereby making the tree planted by him but barren in his lifetime, to yield abundantly its bitter fruits after his decease! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 715 (April 1, 1845) Surget v. Byers By evidence taken on the part of the complainant, it is stated that they were worth from one to five dollars, or from two to three dollars per acre, and, taking a mean valuation between these, giving the estimate of three dollars per acre, the lands at the time of the sale were worth not less than forty thousand dollars, and were purchased by the person who originated and controlled the whole transaction for nine dollars and thirteen cents! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 92 (July 1, 1845) Ashley v. Hyde In such case litigation would be endless, parties litigant would! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 246 (Oct. 1, 1845) Gasquett & Co. v. Berry There is nothing in the record showing that he has been apprised of the present proceeding, and the statute of amendments certainly could not be so expanded as to bring a new party before the court, without giving him notice in some of t[ie modes prescribed by law! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 269 (Oct. 1, 1845) State ex rel. Ashley v. Lawson The question involved in this case, is, had Whitaker such an interest in the land described in plaintiffs’ declaration as was subject to an execution! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 296 (Oct. 1, 1845) Ferguson v. Blakeney Was' this designed as an ex parte proceeding, or did the act contemplate a regular suit with plaintiffs and defendants! 0 Link
Illinois 7 Ill. 604 (Dec. 1, 1845) Hitchcock v. Haight I! 0 Link
Illinois 7 Ill. 1 (Dec. 1, 1845) Jarrot v. Jarrot It is true-that the legislature have provided that slaves should be taxed; that they might be sold upon execution, and attachments levied upon them; that they! 0 Link
Illinois 7 Ill. 1 (Dec. 1, 1845) Jarrot v. Jarrot It was- evidently intended by the framers of our Constitution that this should bo a free State, and yet it is contended for the defendant, that the French negroes and their descendants, ¡though residentin this State, are sla'ves forever! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 28 (April 1, 1846) Fowler v. Pearce We are, therefore, of opinion that the motion must- be sustained, and that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue accordingly, requiring him absolutely to execute and acknowledge in due form, a deed to the plaintiff for the lands in question, when-his own fees shall have been paid, and such deed! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 506 (April 1, 1846) Hartgraves v. Duval If the plaintiff in error was entitled to a! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. 506 (April 1, 1846) Hartgraves v. Duval He does not! 0 Link
Arkansas 1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 475 (Oct. 1, 1846) Oakley v. Ballard The second contract, by the mutual consent of the parties, was also rescinded! 0 Link
Illinois 8 Ill. 590 (Dec. 1, 1846) McConnell v. Greene But in the absence of any explanation of the agreement, the Court would have been fully justified in presuming that he died prior to the day of sale, in order to protect the rights of the minors! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 333 (Jan. 1, 1847) Woodruff v. State If the circuit court had refused to permit the State to withdraw her replications! 0 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 341 (Jan. 1, 1847) Humphries v. Lawson If he make a! 1 Link
Arkansas 2 Ark. 542 (Jan. 1, 1847) Walker v. Walker Here the endorsers obtained a formal mortgage of a very large amount of property, and had the same recorded as an indemnity against the several undertakings and liabilities, and that they actually and of their own accord released to their principal a large portion of the mortgaged estate, without any agency or consent of the holder of this note; and if the property remaining in their hands proved! 0 Link
Illinois 9 Ill. 159 (Dec. 1, 1847) Hulicik v. Scovil The Court overruled the motion, found the issue for the defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly! 0 Link
Illinois 9 Ill. 159 (Dec. 1, 1847) Hulicik v. Scovil That question, however, properly belongs to the investigation of another branch of the subject, to which ! 0 Link
Illinois 9 Ill. 336 (Dec. 1, 1847) Rigg v. Cook The name of the plaintiff is the! 0 Link
Arkansas 3 Ark. 328 (Jan. 1, 1848) Finley v. Woodruff The-inducement of the \ special traverse always contains either new affirmative matter, in- ! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 1 (Dec. 1, 1848) People v. Reynolds The law, as passed, was complete and! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 1 (Dec. 1, 1848) People v. Reynolds The object to be | accomplished, or the thing permitted may be specified, and ! 1 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 196 (Dec. 1, 1848) Mason ex rel. Mason v. Caldwell I know of no reason why this contract should be ! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 196 (Dec. 1, 1848) Mason ex rel. Mason v. Caldwell This |! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 227 (Dec. 1, 1848) Jameson v. Conway The true rule on this subject undoubtedly is, that the declarations of a party are not competent evidence to prove , a matter directly in issue, unless parol evidence would be: admissible to establish it, or unless there is no higher or j better evidence of the same fact in existence, which can be! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 130 (Dec. 1, 1848) Seeley v. Peters How different here! 0 Link
Illinois 10 Ill. 48 (Dec. 1, 1848) McIntire v. Preston Angel! 0 Link
Arkansas 4 Ark. 270 (Jan. 1, 1849) State v. Scott Should the people of this State desire to remodel their entire State government, they would, in the exercise of some of the sovereign powers which they have reserved, resume all the sovereign powers that they had delegated, and these, added to those that they had reserved, would place them in the possession of the entire sovereign powers and all their natural rights, except such as have been surrendered and delegated to the federal government, and with these they would! 0 Link
Arkansas 4 Ark. 411 (Jan. 1, 1849) Burton’s adr. v. Lockert’s exrs. True it is, that, at the date of his petition, it had not matured into a debt, as the contingency, upon which it was made to depend, might or might not happen; yet we conceive, to say the least of it, it was an inchoate right and such as in the spirit and under the proliey of! 0 Link
Arkansas 4 Ark. 463 (Jan. 1, 1849) Collins v. Woodruff Hire! 0 Link
Arkansas 5 Ark. 169 (July 1, 1849) Newton v. Cocke And to do this he read in evidence a certified copy of the last will and testament of John Pope, deceased, appointing him and Daniel Ringo executors, and also read (whether as an original paper or copy does not appear) a writing which is as follows, to wit: “Washington County Court,! 0 Link
Illinois 11 Ill. 352 (Dec. 1, 1849) Pearl v. Wellman The other point of variance insisted upon is, that the judgment is for costs generally, without specifying the amount, while the bond refers to a judgment for $7 50! 0 Link
Illinois 11 Ill. 325 (Dec. 1, 1849) Gray v. McCane Admitting that the facts set forth in the answer, if proved—orJ^»g^Nd,h in a plea, and admitted—would have constitutj fence, the defendant, if he thought proper to answer, should have been required to furnish! 0 Link
Arkansas 6 Ark. 349 (July 1, 1850) Davies v. Pettit Or shall the convicted forger be delivered from the penitentiary and set at large upon society because the same incendiary flame, that destroyed the record of his conviction, at the same time consumed the material evidence of his guilt! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 290 (Dec. 1, 1850) Compher v. People The day of payment may, therefore! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 111 (Dec. 1, 1850) Lee v. Abrams This he cannot afterwards deny before the auditors, nor can he discharge himself from rendering an account, by proof that he has before fully accounted, or of any other fact which shows that he is not then indebted to the plaintiff! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 302 (Dec. 1, 1850) Webster v. French According to the decision in this case, when it was before us at the last term, the responsible bidder who by putting in the highest bid brought himself' within the terms offered by the State, in the law and the advertisement, closed a contract with the State, which either party had! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 302 (Dec. 1, 1850) Webster v. French The governor was- still, vested with a necessary discretion to determine whowereresponsible bidders,, and of the responsibility of the security offered, bufe still all had a right to have their bids considered, if they wersput in in time, and the highest responsible bidder who- offered! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 447 (Jan. 1, 1851) Crittenden v. Johnson And even if that intention was plainly manifested, it would still be a debatable question, whether or not it would come within the constitutional sphere of retrospective statutes! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 407 (June 1, 1851) Hudson v. Dickinson It was the duty of the defendant, if he intended to'dispute the as-! 0 Link
Illinois 12 Ill. 446 (June 1, 1851) Tubbs v. Kleek In the first of these cases, the promise to marry was made at a period subsequent to the seduction, and, as was well remarked! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 9 (July 1, 1851) Lytle v. Arkansas Whether such a tender, would be good at common law, it is not necessary to enquire! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 9 (July 1, 1851) Lytle v. Arkansas Maynor, and Elliott Bussey! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 9 (July 1, 1851) Lytle v. Arkansas It has been already mentioned, that on the 1st of December 1833, the public surveys were completed, and returned to the Land Office in the beginning of the year 1834! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 9 (July 1, 1851) Lytle v. Arkansas That they expended large sums on the lands purchased, and made highly valuable improvements thereon, without any objection being made by complainants, or notice of their claim being given to respondents, and therefore a court of equity cannot interfere with their existing rights! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 50 (July 1, 1851) Mitchell v. State It is assumed by the appellant’s counsel, that the parly called upon by an officer is bound to obey, and that having no option whether he will do so or not, he must, of necessity, be protected against any evil consequences which may result from his acts! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 74 (July 1, 1851) Roane v. Williams There cannot exist a doubt as to the right of the original Trustees to maintain this suit for the use and benefit of the Trustees, under the deed of assignment, so far as any thing appears to the contrary upon the face of the plea! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 77 (July 1, 1851) Biscoe v. Moore In defence, Biscoe filed several pleas, in which the same ground of defence was set up under different circumstances! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 77 (July 1, 1851) Biscoe v. Moore This agreement will be found to contain but two important stipulations: first, that Miller Irwin will, with the proceeds of the note, so executed, purchase Arkansas money and apply it to the payment of the claim so allowed in favor of the Bank; or, secondly, that Biscoe shall have the privilege of paying it in Arkansas money at its value! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 80 (July 1, 1851) Rapley v. Brown Rapley paid him sixty dollars in part satisfaction of his wages! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 101 (July 1, 1851) Ex parte Allis The exclusive original jurisdiction of all crimes amounting to felony at common law fixed in the Circuit Courts, and the exclusive original jurisdiction relating to certain contracts fixed in justices’ courts, would be carried out, but beyond this the jurisdiction in question would have but few limitations! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 119 (July 1, 1851) State Bank v. Whiting It is unnecessary to say any thing as to the effect of a failure to place the cause upon the docket, and of an express order to continue it from term to term, as the state of case, as suggested by the motion did not exist in point of fact! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 164 (July 1, 1851) McGee v. Overby If the property has been restored to the plaintiff, either by the voluntary act of the defendants, or by means of a suit prosecuted against their vendee, it is manifest that he cannot recover its value in this action; and that evidence of such restoration would be admissible for the purpose of mitigating damages! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 218 (July 1, 1851) Byers v. Fowler Chief Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 218 (July 1, 1851) Byers v. Fowler The act of Congress passed in 1800, is relied upon to sustain this position! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 218 (July 1, 1851) Byers v. Fowler The fraud charged upon Tully and Grollman may therefore be considered as a fixed fact, and therefore if the effects of such fraud are to be extended to McDonald, it is clear that he cannot be sustained in his pretensions! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 296 (July 1, 1851) Cunningham v. Ashley It seems clear to us, however, that there is no foundation for the alleged right of entry in the name of the complainant, because it does not appear either that any evidence was offered in the Land Office, tending, to show that the complainant was the then rightful successor to the rights of Morrison, or that such rigtful succession was by the land officers adjudged in his favor without evidence! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 321 (July 1, 1851) State v. Curran Thus it appears that an endorsement on the part of the crown was necessary in every case, and that it served the double purpose of signifying a submission to the jurisdiction of some court, and to point out the particular tribunal; the remedy by petition, being as remarked by Blackstone, “matter of grace and not matter of compulsion,” it could not proceed beyond the petition without a gracious dispensation on the part of the crown! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 321 (July 1, 1851) State v. Curran He did not, however, determine the doubt suggested, because, as he said, it was not necessary in the determination of the case before him! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 321 (July 1, 1851) State v. Curran And yet its operations bad been such that the pecuniary interest of the great mass of the citizens of the State had become so blended with that of the State and both were so much identified with the fate of this institution, that its continued existence with its then powers and capacities, or its sudden destruction, would be alike disastrous to both! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 321 (July 1, 1851) State v. Curran And by a like process the bonds sold by the Real Estate Bank that may have been taken in by the Financial Receiver, are to be exchanged for bonds sold by the State Bank, and these in like manner cancelled And by act approved the 23d December, 1846, the lands were brought within the same rule of exemption by affirmative legislative action in relation to them like that legislative action ip relation to the debts due the Bank, and the Real Estate Bank paper, and the Real Estate State bonds, which we have just considered; and this was required no less to sustain the general purpose for the legislative distribution of the avails of the assets of the Bank, than to prevent their waste in the sacrifice of lands at execution sales, that had so frequently occurred, as we learn from the face of several of the acts of liquidation! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 399 (July 1, 1851) Fullerton v. Houpt The declaration in this case is radically defective both in form and substance! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 401 (July 1, 1851) Lawson v. Bettison True it is that he further alleges that had he been advised of Fowler’s intention to insist upon a trial, that from the advice which he had received, he believed that he could have made a complete defence! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 421 (July 1, 1851) Whiting v. Beebe It does not divest a title but merely confers a right to sell; and this light to sell is alike conferred in all cases whether made on goods or land; and as lands and goods are placed on an equal footing as to the effect of the levy, they must be equally so as a satisfaction; and to concede the rule of prima facie satisfaction in regard to goods, is, in principle, to concede it also in regard to lands, for a*! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 421 (July 1, 1851) Whiting v. Beebe It is very clear that they cannot, for they not only aver the facts in their bill and make it a ground of equity, but exhibit the writs as part of the bill, and evidence to sustain such allegation! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 421 (July 1, 1851) Whiting v. Beebe Having premised this much in regard to the nature and effect of a lien we will proceed to apply these rules to the facts of the case before us! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 421 (July 1, 1851) Whiting v. Beebe The facts abundantly prove that Whiting & Slark, through Fowler, their agent and attorney, paid the defendant, as sheriff, the sum of $903 56, the amount bid for the property in dispute! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 421 (July 1, 1851) Whiting v. Beebe Where an answer admits the receipt of money at one time and sets up that at another tizne, and in another adjustment it was repaid, the repayment is the affirmance of a new act, and must be proved! 0 Link
Illinois 13 Ill. 171 (Dec. 1, 1851) Vansyckle v. Richardson On a final hearing, a decree was entered, dismissing the cross-bill, ascertaining the amounts due the creditors respectively, directing a sale of so much of the real estate’ as would be sufficient to discharge the debt; and, in case the proceeds of the sale should prove insufficient for the purpose, then the same should be distributed pro rat& among the creditors! 0 Link
Illinois 13 Ill. 469 (Dec. 1, 1851) Ralston v. Hughes The land was sold for taxes on the 3d day of May, 1841, for the taxes of 1840, to Robert Tillson, who was -at the time of the assignment of the tax, and till within a short time of the sale, the owner of the premises by virtue of a deed, executed in 1836 by Patten, the mortgagor! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 57 (Jan. 1, 1852) Arnett v. Arnett Williams, in which she alleges that she is the widow of said intestate, who died seized and possessed of two slaves, Green and Edy, in whom she claims a dower interest! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 33 (Jan. 1, 1852) Buford v. Kirkpatrick From the argument of the counsel, however, we may infer that the objection was, that the judgment was void for the want of service or appearance of the defendant to that action! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 52 (Jan. 1, 1852) Davis v. Tarwater And that the application was never granted by either court, unless in cases where equity did not demand such a condition, until the sum recovered was first placed! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 129 (Jan. 1, 1852) State v. Paup Yet1,, there are cases in which, this court will, interfere up on, the ground! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 613 (Jan. 1, 1852) Kelly v. Garvin, Carson & Co. We are satisfied, from a full and thorough investigation of this case, that the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and it is consequently reversed, annulled and set aside, and ordered to be remanded, and proceeded in according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 632 (Jan. 1, 1852) Etter v. Finn In this view of the case, the replication was clearly defective! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 651 (Jan. 1, 1852) Main v. Gordon The third is that the court permitted illegal evidence to go to the jury! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 651 (Jan. 1, 1852) Main v. Gordon If he considered any part of the evidence offered against him, inadmissible for any reason whatever, it was his duty to lay his finger upon it and to make his objection at the time, and having failed to do so whilst the matter was passing before the lower court, it is now too late to avail himself of such objection! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 657 (Jan. 1, 1852) Kelly v. Neely If we are correct in this, and that we are we feel satisfied, then it is that the respondent is incompetent to preside in the cause, and consequently acted correctly in refusing to do so! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 685 (Jan. 1, 1852) Palmer v. Shepherd Our statute, as well as the whole current of our decisions, fully authorized the action of the court below in granting the motion made in this case to file an amended declaration! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 687 (Jan. 1, 1852) Jokes v. Mason The first objection to the plea was not well taken, because the defendant set up new matter in avoidance of the plaintiff’s case as made in the declaration, and tendering an issue a»; this must be taken as confessing otherwise, as to this plea, the cause of action! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 699 (Jan. 1, 1852) Wheat v. Dotson The plea does not set up any want of title in the plaintiff to the improvement in question: on the contrary, it alleges that he was legally entitled to it and in possession of it, by way of showing him to be without excuse for not passing over the possession of it, of which failure the defendant complains, because he has not received this part of the thing he purchased, and for which he executed the note sued on as well as another note! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 715 (Jan. 1, 1852) State Bank v. Minikin In that case, the record showed a judgment prima facie valid and binding upon the defendant: nul tiel record would not have availed him as a defence, yet a special plea was allowed, settingup new matter consistent with facts set forth in the record, and yet a valid defence! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 782 (Jan. 1, 1852) Cornelius v. State Under the process of summoning and drawing the grand jury, the accused can always ascertain whether the jurors drawn are good and lawful men of the county, by referring to the list which the clerk is required to keep of those from whom the grand jury must be drawn! 0 Link
Arkansas 7 Ark. 822 (Jan. 1, 1852) Pillow v. Roberts These deeds come within the description of the 96th section! 0 Link
Illinois 14 Ill. 112 (Dec. 1, 1852) Casey v. Casey Z The law will frequently impose this duty, from the legal rela- ! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 262 (Jan. 1, 1853) Pope’s Exr. v. Ashley’s Exr. Because although at first a given period had been allowed within which to commence an action under pain of closing the courts, before the expiration of that period, the legislature, by the operation of this statute of repeal, if valid, cut down that period! 0 Link