Jurisdiction Citation Name Text Reports Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 307 (Jan. 1, 1853) State v. Quarles And! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 328 (Jan. 1, 1853) Ringgold v. Randolph At the trial of the case in the circuit court, under the issue formed upon the plea of payment, the defendant offered the record in the first suit, the execution thereon, the return of the sheriff that the same was satisfied by the defendants by the payment of Arkansas Bank paper, and also proof that the sheriff was specially instructed by the plaintiff through his attorney to receive such paper in payment and satisfaction of the judgment, as evidence to sustain the issue on his part; but the court, on motion of the plaintiff, excluded said records and evidence from the jury! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 360 (Jan. 1, 1853) Pleasant v. State They inspect the instrument of a homicide, and so the appearance of the different witnesses is matter for their observation! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 653 (Jan. 1, 1853) Cunningham v. Ashley In their answers, the defendants specify a number of lots sold in the south-east quarter, and they allege the greater part of it has been sold in lots! 0 Link
Illinois 14 Ill. 424 (June 1, 1853) Stow v. Yarwood The principle plainly deducible from the adjudged cases is,) that mutual demands arising out of the same subject-matter,! 0 Link
Illinois 14 Ill. 405 (June 1, 1853) Newhall v. Buckingham In equity, a partner has the specific right to have the partnership \ effects faithfully applied to the payment of the partnership debts, j The real interest of a partner in the joint property, is a moiety off the surplus that may remain after the joint debts are discharged,; And this interest is all that a purchaser acquires at a sale on! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 127 (July 1, 1853) Ellis v. Dunham What is due notice in such case would be ascertained by regarding him as the drawer of a sight draft upon the maker, and so any question of reasonable diligence on the part of the payee, or any holder of such draft, would be determined as at the law merchant! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 180 (July 1, 1853) Bailey v. Gatton Prior to the passage of our present statute, which took effect 20th March, 1839, it was not necessary to file the cause of complaint upon which the suit was brought, until the commencement of the trial! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 180 (July 1, 1853) Bailey v. Gatton The defendant had no other information in regard to the nature of the demand which he was summoned to answer, than that disclosed in the summons! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 62 (July 1, 1853) Adams v. Taylor The two suits being at issue, by replications to the answers, both parties proceeded to take depositions! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 234 (July 1, 1853) State Bank v. Walker Chief Justice Watkins delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 32 (July 1, 1853) Burton v. Hynson At Aug! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 32 (July 1, 1853) Burton v. Hynson Hynson answered, denying all the material allegations in the bill; he exhibited the account current, in settlement of which the complainant had executed the writing obligatory in question! 1 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 86 (July 1, 1853) Byers v. Fowler The transcript from the Probate 'Court of Independence county, exhibits a partial settlement of James Boswell’s administration account made of the 5th and-6th of April, 1837, commencing with an item as “brought forward” from a settlement made at October term, 1834, by which he is charged with a balance in his hands at that settlement of $7,181 90; to this is added $1,--580 70, as a balance brought from a settlement at October term, 1835, and the amount of $60 35, the amount of a supplemental! 1 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 86 (July 1, 1853) Byers v. Fowler It would be impossible to presume a complete payment of the residue of the debt, because upon the ground contended for by the defence (to wit: that an appropriation by Boswell, as administrator, of funds in his hands as such, to the claims of Cox’s representatives in his hands for collection, as agent for the' latter, was in law and equity equivalent to an actual payment to the representatives of Cox) the testimony of Egner shows distinctly that the five hundred dollars in Arkansas Bank notes, which Boswell had deposited in the Bank at Batesville, were not included in the sum with which the Cox debt was to be paid, and with equal distinctness that the two or three hundred dollars that Fowler had collected from McHenry were included in that sum, and it cannot be taken that this two or three hundred dollars had been at that time paid over by Fowler to Boswell, because, if so there could be no reason to discriminate between money then on ■hand, and that which had been collected by Fowler from McHenry, which is so emphatically made and repeated by Egner in his •deposition, and there is no evidence at all in the record that this, -or any other sum of money was ever paid to Boswell by Fowler! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 173 (July 1, 1853) Witt v. State Chief Justice Watkins delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 21 (July 1, 1853) Turner v. Huggins His credibility, however, was the only question before the jury, so far as his testimony is concerned; and according as the jury believed the witnesses, we cannot say they were not justified in concluding that the parties in this transaction practiced a cheat on the plaintiff, by means of a secret defect known to themselves, but not apparent on inspection! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 220 (July 1, 1853) Thompson v. Haislip The plea should have been stricken out! 0 Link
Arkansas 8 Ark. 720 (July 1, 1853) Stewart v. State Delays growing out of the established mode of proceeding, which has been so established by law equally for the protection of the accused, and to accomplish- the design of the ! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 279 (Dec. 1, 1853) Pickett v. Hartsock You will please take notice, that I hold a judgment against you in the Greene circuit court, State of Rlinois, as conservator of the estate of your father, Ichabod Valentine ; said judgment in my favor for $! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 628 (Jan. 1, 1854) Moore v. Anders Chief Justice Watkins delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 524 (Jan. 1, 1854) Hanly v. Carneal They contain no reference to the common law practice on this subject, nor any provision indicating an adoption of it! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 545 (Jan. 1, 1854) McDaniel v. Coleman Chief Justice Waticins delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 419 (Jan. 1, 1854) Miller v. Ratliff Chief Justice Watkins delivered the opinion of the Court! 1 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 505 (Jan. 1, 1854) Ryburn v. Pryor Refusing instrucW asked by the defendant! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 603 (Jan. 1, 1854) Cox v. Morrow Clarissa Grant married Eli Cox, in Tennessee, where they continue to live! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 603 (Jan. 1, 1854) Cox v. Morrow The action of replevin in the detinet, as now regulated by statute, is very similar to detinue, and may be said to lie in all cases where the plaintiff has the right of property, either general or special, and the right to immediate possession of a chattel taken or detained by the defendant, and differs from detinue in this; that in replevin the plaintiff obtains possession of the chattel in advance of the trial, and the defendant is supposed to be protected from the harshness of the remedy by the affidavit and bond of the plaintiff, and the short period of limitation prescribed for it! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 603 (Jan. 1, 1854) Cox v. Morrow At her death, without any previous disposition of them by him, his power to sell her choses in action, or rights of property in expectancy ceased, equally with his own right to recover them! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 603 (Jan. 1, 1854) Cox v. Morrow Marksberry, 3 Littell 281, the rule was distinctly asserted, though it may have been influenced by a statute of Kentucky there quoted, and the court enter into the same argument used here, to establish a difference between choses in action, which do not vest in the husband unless reduced into possession during the coverture, and his marital rights in the wife’s expectancies in remainder; an argument which implies that the rule sought to be introduced was an innovation, and not a familiar principle of the common law! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 315 (Jan. 1, 1854) Williams v. Green And there is no good reason why the like rule should not apply to agreements for the sale or delivery of chattels of any particular description by a day certain! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 555 (Jan. 1, 1854) Austin v. State If thep the master knows any fact tending to save the life of the slave, shall society, who have taken from him the slave for the purpose of trial, say to him, not that you are master, and we will weigh your credit, but you are master and shall not speak at all! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 370 (Jan. 1, 1854) Merrick v. Avery, Wayne & Co. They import a right to prior satisfaction out of the property bound by the lien, and being the creatures of positive law, are usually regiilated by a system of registry, operating as constructive notice; so that they take effect, and are to be satisfied according to priority of record! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 370 (Jan. 1, 1854) Merrick v. Avery, Wayne & Co. It concerns vessels which navigate the seas,- and the classes of persons engaged in navigating, or who contract in respect of such vessels! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 601 (Jan. 1, 1854) Marlow v. Robins John Robins,' sued out scire facias to revive the judgment in his name as such: executor! 0 Link
Arkansas 14 Ark. 601 (Jan. 1, 1854) Marlow v. Robins State Bank, at the present term, the objection could not be reached by a motion to strike the plea from the files! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 585 (June 1, 1854) Merriman v. Canal Boat Col. Butts The statute in relation to “ attachments of! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 366 (June 1, 1854) Conger v. Chicago & Rock Island Railroad It may be that assumpsit mighe tained upon the implied promise to make the fence, b J means follows that the plaintiff may not treat the v| the duty which arose in the company to make the! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 366 (June 1, 1854) Conger v. Chicago & Rock Island Railroad He failed form the covenants, for which an action was broughj recovery had by the landlord against the executors of the II who then brought an action on the case against the assign! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 366 (June 1, 1854) Conger v. Chicago & Rock Island Railroad And I think that a duty did arise when the defend accepted the assignment of the lease subject to the perform^ of the covenants, and that as a breach of that duty has committed, a special action on the case may be maintain! 1 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 366 (June 1, 1854) Conger v. Chicago & Rock Island Railroad Upon the argument an objection was made to the damages! 0 Link
Illinois 15 Ill. 375 (June 1, 1854) Eddy v. County Commissioners See also Angel! 1 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 137 (July 1, 1854) Lefils & Christian v. Sugg The! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 137 (July 1, 1854) Lefils & Christian v. Sugg A direction to supply articles, which may be super- \ fluous and extravagant, could not be inferred from the fact of ! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 137 (July 1, 1854) Lefils & Christian v. Sugg Looking at the bill of particulars of the demand in suit, and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it is not to be presumed that the bulk of the articles, for example, kid gloves, cologne, fiddle-strings, bridles and spurs, walking-canes, and powder-flask and caps, a silk cravat, and a silk and linen coat, f> were such as the boys needed, or their father would have ordered ! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 246 (July 1, 1854) Blagg v. Hunter Mortgages,”) as of the officers empowered to act in such cases! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 363 (July 1, 1854) Patrick v. Davis TJpon this state of facts,, tbe court being of opinion that the law was fbr the defendant — to-which opinion the plaintiff excepted, and tookhis bill of exceptions-! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 389 (July 1, 1854) Herndon v. Higgs Supposing it stood upon bill, answer and replication, the denials in the answer were upon information, and the averment according to'belief, except so far as the defendant may have had a knowledge of the fact of a partial payment to the preceding administrator! 0 Link
Illinois 16 Ill. 235 (Dec. 1, 1854) Norton v. Lexington Fire, Life & Marine Insurance On the 13th of October, 1851, Norton & Company sued out an attachment again! 0 Link
Illinois 16 Ill. 198 (Dec. 1, 1854) Chicago & Mississipi Railroad v. Patchin What ; further rights may he claim of protection to them while in the j enjoyment of this quasi permissive easement; whether it ex- ! 0 Link
Illinois 16 Ill. 198 (Dec. 1, 1854) Chicago & Mississipi Railroad v. Patchin We may readily admit that there ! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 555 (Jan. 1, 1855) Kelly’s Heirs v. McGuire Any other exposition would render the section entirely nugatory; and we must so construe statutes as that every part may bare its proper effect, if possible! 0 Link
Arkansas 15 Ark. 611 (Jan. 1, 1855) State ex rel. Jones, Woodward & Co. v. Borden If any officer to whom any execution shall! 0 Link
Illinois 16 Ill. 558 (June 1, 1855) Galena & Chicago Union R. R. v. Fay Where these are shown, courts and juries can-’ not adjust their degrees and guage their effects, nor will the law| hold carriers to answer for all the lower degrees, until they! 1 Link
Arkansas 16 Ark. 384 (July 1, 1855) State v. Morrill But deriving! 0 Link
Arkansas 16 Ark. 384 (July 1, 1855) State v. Morrill Or if a judgment is rendered against a man, as soon as the judge leaves the bench, he is met at the door, insulted and assaulted by the party, in consequence of his decision, and then a publication is made in a newspaper charging him with corruption in rendering the judgment, and calling upon the community to disregard, and resist its execution, and yet this is no contempt! 0 Link
Arkansas 16 Ark. 534 (July 1, 1855) Hofler v. State Was Handle, armed! 0 Link
Arkansas 16 Ark. 568 (July 1, 1855) Atkins v. State It does not allege the identity of! 0 Link
Arkansas 16 Ark. 568 (July 1, 1855) Atkins v. State Whatever may be a man's views of capita! 0 Link
Arkansas 17 Ark. 9 (Jan. 1, 1856) Brown v. Wright No ! 0 Link
Arkansas 17 Ark. 292 (Jan. 1, 1856) Abraham v. Wilkins He tried to write, and was then laid down, and said, band me some of them line pipe stems: said, look up there! 0 Link
Arkansas 17 Ark. 292 (Jan. 1, 1856) Abraham v. Wilkins The burthen, therefore,^! 0 Link
Arkansas 17 Ark. 505 (Jan. 1, 1856) Palmer v. Hicks It is true, that the law court does not favor pleas in abatement, as they are not treated as pleas to the merits; and, perhaps, they are not more favorably regarded in a court of equity! 0 Link
Illinois 17 Ill. 522 (June 1, 1856) Follansbe v. Kilbreth They were bound, in a reasonable time,! 0 Link
Arkansas 18 Ark. 9 (July 1, 1856) Magruder v. State Bank But let all be conceded that is claimed by the counsel for the appellants, and the argument amounts to this: the bank had safe and sufficient personal security for Pel-ham’s debt, but her officers unwisely and by mistake, or in disregard of the duties imposed on them by law, surrendered the personal security, and took Pelham’s individual bond for the debt, with Magruder’s mortgage upon property not worth half the amount of the debt, therefore the mortgage is null and void, and the bank must lose the only security which she now has— in other words, that by an improvident arrangement of her officers, she has lost part of her debt, and therefore she must lose it all! 0 Link
Arkansas 18 Ark. 65 (July 1, 1856) Vaugine v. Taylor We are forced to this conclusion, from the fact, that the interest conveyed to Wilson was one half of four millions of acres of land! 0 Link
Arkansas 18 Ark. 142 (July 1, 1856) Shall v. Biscoe The appellants claim no title under the Onstott judgment; but they insist that Walters purchased a valid title to Johnston's undivided half of the three lots, under the Farrelly judgment! 0 Link
Arkansas 18 Ark. 399 (Jan. 1, 1857) Jackson v. Bob If Hamilton had so obligated himself directly to Bob, instead of Brown, Bob could not have compelled him to a specific performance of the contract, in a Court of law or equity, or have recovered the penalty for his failure to do so — because it was an executory contract for emancipation! 0 Link
Arkansas 18 Ark. 495 (Jan. 1, 1857) Harriet v. Swan STATE OF ARKANSAS,! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 102 (July 1, 1857) Harrell v. Hill In the first place, it is in proof that the defendant resided on the premises in question for the twenty years next before the sale — was conversant with the lines including his farm — was aware that the river bank in front had been addicted to “ caving” for some years before tbe sale, and in addition to all this, absolutely gave these lands in to the assessor of Pulaski county, for the year# 1851, and 1852, as containing only 120 acres! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 102 (July 1, 1857) Harrell v. Hill Peay, the clerk of the Circuit and county Courts of Pulaski county, that it appears from official records in his office that the lands in question never did contain overl23 84-100 acres! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 102 (July 1, 1857) Harrell v. Hill If these lands had been entered by the defendant, or if not entered by him but purchased by him from a person other than the government, why did he not introduce, at the hearing, his patent, his certificate of entry, or his deed, and show from it that his muniment of title called for 180 acres, and thereby explain the cause of his mistake, and place himself favorably before the court! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 178 (July 1, 1857) Green v. State STATE OF ARKANSAS,! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 257 (July 1, 1857) Oswalt v. Moore Dobbins,! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 278 (July 1, 1857) Williams v. Cheatham To which Williams replied, yours! 0 Link
Illinois 19 Ill. 189 (Dec. 1, 1857) Keener v. Crull These “ causes,” the judges say, could be specified in a replication to a plea of the statute! 0 Link
Illinois 19 Ill. 189 (Dec. 1, 1857) Keener v. Crull Will evade the statute! 0 Link
Illinois 19 Ill. 189 (Dec. 1, 1857) Keener v. Crull It is not my nature, nor is it! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 360 (Jan. 1, 1858) State v. County Court of Crittenden County It was, in effect, that the Legislature should not have the power to make the burdens of taxation slightly unequal, but it should have the power to make them greatly so! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 695 (Jan. 1, 1858) Kirkpatrick v. Stewart That the defendant, in conjunction with the other two judges — not sued — >! 0 Link
Arkansas 19 Ark. 701 (Jan. 1, 1858) Hicks v. Maness The appellant, then, made good his appeal, and was really aggrieved to the amount of one dollar! 0 Link
Illinois 19 Ill. 545 (April 1, 1858) Owen v. Robbins In many cases, to receive a conveyance of an outstanding title, as a gratuity, ! 0 Link
Illinois 19 Ill. 578 (April 1, 1858) Chicago & Aurora Railroad v. Thompson Eoi! 0 Link
Arkansas 20 Ark. 166 (Jan. 1, 1859) State v. King The State must establish the guilt of the accused in all cases before he can be condemned, and he is entitled, by a humane provision of the law, to the benefit of all reasonable doubts! 0 Link
Arkansas 20 Ark. 76 (Jan. 1, 1859) Harville v. State Justice Compton delivered the opinion of the Court! 0 Link
Illinois 21 Ill. 279 (Jan. 1, 1859) Rockwell v. Jones It then only remains to determine, whether the proceedings in the action by scire facias and subsequent deeds, in connection with! 0 Link
Illinois 21 Ill. 255 (Jan. 1, 1859) Camp v. Morgan If the party making costs does not pay them when made, he is liable for their payment, on a fee bill issued against him for their collection! 0 Link
Illinois 22 Ill. 300 (April 1, 1859) Denman v. Bayless The very idea is monstrous—that an award duly made and signed, and delivered by the arbitrators to one of their body, or to any other person for the benefit of the parties, shall be defeated if the unsuccessful party shall not agree to it! 0 Link
Illinois 22 Ill. 161 (April 1, 1859) Owens v. Ranstead Finding no rule of the character this is, and called to conduct a chancery case, what would be his dismay and discomfiture, when proposing under the act of 1849, to introduce parol evidence, to be met by the objection, that the rule of court requires notice of such intention to be given ten days before the term of the court! 0 Link
Illinois 23 Ill. 97 (April 1, 1859) Bennett v. Waller That a party who, by his misfortune, or, if you please, his fault, has lost the only evidence of his rights which can render their enjoyment secure, shall not have that evidence restored, because it will subject this young gentleman to the inconvenience of writing his name to a deed! 0 Link
Arkansas 20 Ark. 625 (Oct. 1, 1859) Reed v. Hanger Reed! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 145 (Jan. 1, 1860) Kinsworthy v. Mitchell Williams, who was appointed for that purpose, growing out of the fact that the laws of this State are vague and indefinite on this subject, and do not authorize or prescribe the mode or time of making supplemental assessments, and the court not being fully informed of its legal powers in this behalf, nor of the validity of said supplemental tax list, and it further appearing that a large number of,the debtors have positively refused payment as charged in said list, and the court not wishing to involve the collector and such delinquent debtors in expensive and vexatious suits atdaw, to ascertain the legal effect of the said sup plemental tax list, and the time being near at hand, when al! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 186 (Jan. 1, 1860) Hicks v. Branton Neither of these pleas expressly tendered an issue as to whether the appellees had filed their account, in proper form, in the clerk’s office! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 160 (Jan. 1, 1860) Ferguson v. Etter Under our system, the particular lands taxed are, by express legislation, made liable for the taxes, Gould's Dig! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 69 (Jan. 1, 1860) Richardson v. Comstock The Court charged the jury, on the motion of appellants! 0 Link
Illinois 23 Ill. 456 (Jan. 1, 1860) Ferraria v. Vasconcelles The court say that the judicial eye cannot penetrate the veil of the church, for the forbidden purpose of vindicating the alleged wrongs of the excised members; that when they became members, they did so upon the condition! 0 Link
Illinois 23 Ill. 425 (Jan. 1, 1860) Wade v. Walden If the facts and information upon which Wade made the complaint were sufficient to raise the belief in a reasonable mind that Walden was guilty of the crime charged, and Wade did believe that he was guilty, then he acted upon probable cause, and must j be justified in law, although his malice may have been gratified ! 0 Link
Illinois 25 Ill. 25 (April 1, 1860) Stone v. Pratt Absolutely nothing! 0 Link
Illinois 24 Ill. 152 (April 1, 1860) Granger v. McGilvra If, upon a final settlement of the concern by the receiver, he has funds in his hands which would otherwise go to Wilkinson, he should pay those funds to the complainant, to the amount remaining due upon the judgments, and if the receiver shall not have enough of Wilkinson’s ! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 417 (July 1, 1860) Prewett v. Vaughn Williams, on the 2d March, 1857, payable 1st of July following; and assigned by the obligee to the plaintiff on the day the}! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 347 (July 1, 1860) Jacoway v. McGarrah Chief Justice English delivered the opinion of the court! 0 Link
Arkansas 21 Ark. 539 (Oct. 1, 1860) Dresden's v. Walker And there are, difficulties in upholding the averments as to the eighty acres, and the ten acres in the south-west quarter of section twenty-four, alleged to have been conveyed to obtain the consent' of Mussett and McClelland to the location! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 19 (Oct. 1, 1860) Newton’s Heirs v. State Bank The last question in the case is, whether there was any fraud or unfairness in this case, which would affect the purchaser ! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 158 (Oct. 1, 1860) Jackson v. Jones That if, after the plaintiff had supplied himself for the year 1854, there was not remaining on the 1st January, 1855, as much as fifteen hundred bushels of the corn which had been raised and gathered on the plaintiff’s farm, the plaintiff was not bound, under the contract, to deliver a less quantity, and if the defendant appropriated the corn to his own use without the consent of the plaintiff, he was liable for the value of the corn! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 308 (Oct. 1, 1860) McCoy v. State ex rel. Jackson Co. Tmj/or,'! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 315 (Oct. 1, 1860) McRae v. Rhodes L- ■! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 336 (Oct. 1, 1860) Love v. State Under all the agitation, fears and possible, if not probable “ hopes, produced by these circumstances, he made his first con- “ fession, and immediately after, the one before the magistrate! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 413 (Oct. 1, 1860) Hogan v. Hensley On the trial of this case in the court below — it being an appeal from the decision of a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court — the appellant offered in evidence the writing obligator! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 137 (Jan. 1, 1861) Clayton v. Lafargue No bad faith or partiality in the assessors is pretended! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 268 (Jan. 1, 1861) Tucker v. Bond The declaration charged the defendants with taking and converting twenty-three head of hogs, the property of the plaintiff! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 175 (Jan. 1, 1861) Thompson v. Gossitt The witnesses prove that Thompson was in feeble health at the time of the sale, but the evidence does not show that he was legally'incompetent, from mental imbecility, to make a valid contract! 0 Link
Arkansas 22 Ark. 595 (Jan. 1, 1861) Jefferson County v. Hudson To expenses incurred in hiring seven deputies! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 387 (May 1, 1861) Bevens v. Baxter Chief Justice English delivered the opinion of the court! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 653 (Dec. 1, 1861) Walworth v. Miles If he is satisfied, it is all • “ right, as I do not wish to go by the contract, áñd if he cannot “'hold me to it, I am bound to have at least 2,500 to 3,000 acres " “of his land, and as the thing is now, I shall get every acre of ! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 459 (Dec. 1, 1861) Patterson v. Fowler’s exr. The court remarked that as to judgments, ‘the statute has limited the continuance of the lien, but with regard to execution liens, the statute is silent, and the court must necessarily determine, from delay and other circumstances, whether the lien has been waived or abandoned! 0 Link
Arkansas 23 Ark. 582 (Dec. 1, 1861) Kelly v. Dooling Know all men by these presents, that I William Cail, of the county of Phillips, and State of Arkansas, have, this 1st day of February, 1853, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Thomas J! 0 Link
Illinois 27 Ill. 332 (Jan. 1, 1862) Ball v. Bruce Had the affidavit been sufficient for the purpose, and the court had ruled him to give security, either on the first or subsequent application, we should have regarded the case as falling within the rule announced in the cases referred to above! 0 Link
Illinois 27 Ill. 260 (Jan. 1, 1862) Clarke v. Quackenbos The answer of the appellant, sustained as it is by all the proofs in the cause, shows a case of such heartlessness on the part of the complainants—such want of filial regard—such absence of affection and reverence for an aged mother on the very brink of the grave, and who had been more than mother to all of them—whose temper was of the kindest and most cheerful nature—whose heart yearned for her children’s love and sympathy—who had been accustomed to all the luxuries and attention which wealth cannot fail to command—within the circle of whose gentleness and love, all ought to be happy— whose gentle disposition created an atmosphere around her, which should have warmed the coldest heart—who had, from the impulses of her generous nature, embarrassed herself to relieve them—who was suffered, by them, surrounded, as they were, by all the comforts of life, residing in luxurious mansions, with rooms well furnished and to spare, to make her home with strangers, at the advanced age of eighty-three, who denied to her remains the shelter of their roofs,—presents such a picture of cold and heartless nature, as to make humanity shudder! 0 Link
Illinois 27 Ill. 93 (Jan. 1, 1862) Blunt v. Tomlin It requires more than an ordinary share of boldness, to declare, judicially, in the teeth of a statute, that an action may be brought and maintained on a contract, not in writing, for the sale of land, when the statute declares, “ no such action shall be brought ”! 0 Link
Illinois 28 Ill. 9 (April 1, 1862) Bass v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad They had no right, forsooth, to enter upon the premises for such a purpose! 0 Link
Illinois 28 Ill. 299 (April 1, 1862) Illinois Central Railroad v. Buckner Warner says, “Any person, of ordinary hearing, could! 0 Link
Illinois 28 Ill. 463 (April 1, 1862) Marine Bank v. Rushmore That is to say, the trash they received was paid out to their customers—the good notes were reserved for their own special purposes, to be converted into coin and hoarded ! 0 Link