Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

PAGE

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

....

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Cunningham vs. Trappall......... 557

H.
Curtis vs. Daniel......

Haggerty advs. Toby.....
D.
Hagood advs. State.......

533
Haller vs. Willamowicz....

566

Daniel vs. Guy.......

50 Haralson vs. Walker.......

415

Daniel adve. Curtis....

362 Harbison adv. Henry.......
Deadman adve. Sullivan...

14 Harding advs. Keeler et al...
Deaton advs. Jordan....

Harris, Wormly & Co. vs. Redman. 535
Dodd adv. Latta.....

Hartsook vs. Sessions...

519
Dooley adv. Raines...

Harvey ads. Reed....
Dooling adve. Keely...

Hawkins vs. Greene.

Dicus vs. Bright...

107 Hays vs. Roberts.....

same re. same..

Henry vs. Harbison.

. 25

Duncan vs. Bateman..
327 Henry vs. Fine...

. 417
Duval ve. Mayson....

Hicks vs. Wyatt..

. 55
Duval adve. Rogers........

77 | Hill vs. Wright, Williams & Co 15
Hill ex. vs. State.........

.. 604

Hirsch vs. Patterson...... .. 112

Hogan et al. vs. State...

636

Eddins ve. Buck...

607

Hopson vs. Petillo.......

196

Edington advs. Mayson...

208

Houston vs. Brown.....

Elder advs. Bertrand.

494

Howard advs. Gulledge..

61

Ellyson adve. Grubbs.

287

Howard advs. Smith..

203

Estes advs. Moore..

152

Hunter ad vs. Imboden...... 622

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

gol

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Imboden vs. Hunter.....

.... 622
Independence county advs. Bates.. 722
Ingram vs. Marshall..
nale :***

... 115

417

746

Jackson vs. Rutherford......
735 Jackson county adve. Lyle...
439 Johnson ve. Brock........ ..282

Johnston et al. advs. Ashby ... 163
Jones vs. Jones.........

212
Jones advs. Farish ........

323

712 Jones vs. McLain........

429

101

Jordan vs. Deaton........

646

121

16

Keeler et al. vs. Harding.

697

Kelly vs. Union county...

331
175
Kelly advs. same....

350

118

Kelly vs. Dooling.....

582

Kingsworthy vs. Austin..

Kline advs. State.....

769

89

258 Lafargue advs. Clayton.......

637 Langley vs. Barkman.........

287 | Langridge vs Cobbs, ex....... 549

61 Lanier advs. Thomas.........

396 Larey advs. McClintock ...!

702 Latta vs. Dodd.............:

59

50 Lewis adv. Fairhurst.........

435

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

....... 633

[ocr errors]

Logan ads, Scott................. Peay adv. Freeman...

439

Lyle vs. Jackson connty.......... Perkins vs. Clemm..

221

Perry advs. Brooks..

32

M .

Peterson vs. Manley......

628

Petillo vs. Hopson.........

196

Macon et al. advs. Pope et al....

644 Phillips vs. Cheatham..

80

Mabao advs. Owen.....

347

| Phillips vs. Grayson.........

769

Manly adre. Peterson......

Pope et al. vs. Macon et al..

Marshall adv. Ingram............

115 Price advs. Guthrie.......
Matlock adve. Vaughan.....

Price advs. Craig..
Mayo adv. Wilder...

325

Mayor & Co. adv. M. O. R. R. R. Co. 300

Mayson ads. Duval........

30

Mayeon vs. Edington.......... 208 Quarles adv. Watkios............ 179
Msy advs. State use &c........

848

Maxwell vs. Guthrie......... 702

R,

MeCaig adve. Ferguson...........

210
MeCown adv. Moren............. 93 | Raines vs. Dooley.......... 829
MeDermott vs. Cable..

200

Randolph vs. Thomas.......... 69
MeClintock vs. Lary.

216

Rawlings ve. Paty.......... 204

MeLain advs. Jones...

429

Reagan adv. Carter...

74

MeKay adv. S. B. Violet... 543 Redman adv. Harris, Wormly & Co. 636
Miles adv. Walworth...

663
Reed vs. Harvey......

44

Miller vs. Fraley et al.

735

Reed vs. Ryburn ....

47

Miller vs. Wood.....

546

Reeves adv. Atchley...

233

Mis, O. R. R. R. Co. vs. Mayo, &e.. 300

Repfro vs. White......

195

Mitchell advs. Pate ad....

Rhoda adv. State.....

156

Moore vs. Estes................

Rightor vs. Gray......

228

Moore adv. Taylor......

408

Roark adv. Grabam....

19

Moore adv. State.....

550

Roane adv. Woodward..
Montg omery vs. Brittin..

322
Roberts advs. Hays....

193
Moren vs. McCown.........

93
Roberts adv. Cheatham..

651
Morrison vs. Alphin.........

136
Robinson vs. Bishop....

378

Morton vs. Scull.............

289

Rogers vs. Duval...

Moseby adv. Brodie...

313

Rorie et al. advs. State...

Ross vs. State.....

198

N .

Rutherford advs. Jackson..

24

Ryburn advs. Reed........ ... 47
Norris adv. George.............. 121
same adv. Brearly...........

166
same adv. same..............

169
same adv. same...............

614

Sanders advs. Alexander.......... 630
Noris et al. adve. Strawo....... 642

Sanders vs. Ward............. 241

Sargent adv. Cornish....... 277
O .
Sartain advs. State.......

641

Scott vs. Logan.........

Omey vs. State........

281 Scull adys. Morton......

289

Opon ade. Maban................ 347 Sessions vs. Peay.......

39

Sessions vs. Hartsook........ 619

P.

Sball, ad., adv. State.............. 601

Sherrer vs. Bullocks, ad...... 729

Pack vs. State, ......

235 Simmons, ad. advs. Barkman..

Pankey vs. Webber......
205 Slaughter vs. Slaughter...

356
Parker ads. Barker......
390 Smith vs. Howard...

203
Pate ad. vs. Mitchell....... 690 | Smith vs. Carrigan..

656
Patterson vs. Hirsch.....

112 Spence advs. Cossart.
Patterson V9. Thompson..

169 Starke adv. Crump....
Patterson ve. Fowler's ex.. 459 State adv. Taffe.

... 34

Paty adv. Rawlings.......

204 same vs. Rhoda.

Pesy adv. Sessions......

39 same adv. Ross.
same adv. Brearly.......

same adv. Pack.

726

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

... 198
.............. 235

S

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

331

.........

[ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

State vs. Wbite....

275 Trappall adv Cunningham...... 557 same advs. Cooper............. 278 | Tucker Vs. Bond................. 268 same adv. Omey... 281 | Turnbull vs. Turnbull.....

615 sume ve. Branum.. same vs. Sartain..

U.

541 same vs. Moore.... game vs. Hagood...

Union County adv. Kelly.... same vs. Kline......

| Union County vs. Kelly.......... 350 same vs. Shall, ad....

601 same adve. Hill, ex........ 604 same ady. Biscoe.......

592 game adv. Hogan et al..... 636 Vaughan vs. Matlock.... same vs. Rorie et al.... 726 Veatch ye. Greenwood...

637 State use, &c., adv. Taylor.... 225 same vs. Watts.......... 300

W . same ye. May.... same adv. Crow et al. ...... 684 Walker vs. Towns.......

147 Steamboat Violet vs. McKay, 643 Walker adv. Haralson.....

416 Stew rt adg. Alexander..... 18 | Walworth ye. Miles.....

663 Stillwell, ex. adv. Burke's ad... 294 Ward advs. Gill.......

same advs. Stone......... 444 Ward adv. Sanders....... .. 241 Strawn vs. Norris.........

542
Waters vs. Grace........

118 Strong vs. Whatley......... 761 Watkins vs. Quarles....... .. 179 same ve. same ..... ... 421 Watts adv. State use, &c..

.. 304 Sullivan vs. Deadman.......... 14 Webber adv. Pankey......

205 Wells adv. Townsend.. T.

Whatley adv. Strong.......

same vs. same........... Taffe ye. State........

34 White adv. State.......... Taylor vs. State use, &c......

White advs. Renfro........ Taylor vs. Moore....... 408 Wilder vs. Mayo..........

.. 825 Thomas adv. Randolph.

69 Williams advs. Burr........ Thomas vs. Lanier.......

639 Williams vs. Christian... Thompson vs. Patterson..... 159 Willamowicz adv. Haller... Thompson vs. Gossitt....... 175 | Woodward vs. Roane...

523 Thompson vs. Bertrand....... 731 Woodruff vs. Core....

341 Toby vs. Haggerty....... 370 | Wood advs. Miller..

646 Towns, ex. advs. Walker...... 147 | Worthen adv. Beckham... Townsend vs. Wells...

581 | Wright, Williams & Co. adv. Hill.. 630 Trappall adv. Gray........ 510 / Wyatt adv. Hicks........

55

16

[ocr errors]

de......... 225

i. 244 .......... 255

........... 546

[ocr errors]

LIRRAT

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS,

At the January Term, 1861.

[CONTINUED FROM VOL. XXII.]

BARKMAN ET AL. V8. SIMMONS.

Where a deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, purports to convey all of the debtor's property, and refers to a schedule as thereto attached, the assignment operates on the articles specified in tho schedule; but if no schedule is annexed, the deed is inoperative. Sach deed of assignment, being limited and controlled by the schedule intended to be attached to it, is a special, not a general, assignment; and as by the schedule alone it can be ascertained what articles were intended to be conveyed for the benefit of the creditors, the failure to attach the schedule, renders the deed insensible, and parol evidence cannot be resorted to, as in case of a general assignment, to render it operative and effective.

Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court.

Hon. Len B. GREEN, Circuit Judge.

Barkman et al. vs. Simmons.

[JANUARY

Lyon, for the appellant.

The Circuit Court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury, the deed of assignment, executed by Lockwood and Phillips, for the benefit of their creditors. The deed was for a fair and meritorious consideration; and divested Lockwood and Phillips of all ownership of the property at the the time the attachment was levied, at the suit of the defendant. It conveyed all their lands within the State, and all their goods and chattelsnecessarily including the clocks, for the conversion of which, the present suit is brought. This was a general assignment of all the debtors' property, and no schedule was, therefore, necessary; the deed, itself, was sufficiently descriptive of the property, and the schedule intended to be annexed, was for the convenience of parties in accounting for the proper disposition of the proceeds of sale. Hatch vs. Smith, 5 Mass. 42; Robins et al. vs. Embry et al., 1 Sm. & Mar. Ch. Rep. 207.

No schedule being necessary, the deed being sufficiently comprehensive to pass all of the debtor's property, the omission to attach one did not render the deed inoperative. Emerson vs. Knower, 8 Pick. 63; Duval vs. Raisin, 7 Misso. 449.

GALLAGHER, for appellee.

The only point in this case is, did the Circuit Court err in rejecting the deed offered as evidence by the plaintiffs below.

It is respectfully insisted that the deed was properly rejected, because it was defective in a most essential particular, and therefore inoperative and void. It purported to convey personal property as per schedule annexed; no schedule was annexed; the deed, therefore, was not perfected, and no property could be transferred by it. Driscoll et al. vs. Fiske et al., 21 Pick. 503; Wilks vs. Ferris, 5 John. 335.

It being clearly the intention of the parties, as expressed in the deed, that a schedule, descriptive of the articles intended to be conveyed, should be attached to it, the deed itself was inoperative, and nothing whatever passed by it, for

« AnteriorContinuar »