Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co.

55 S.W. 930, 67 Ark. 493, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 141

DecidedFebruary 24, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 55 S.W. 930 (Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co., 55 S.W. 930, 67 Ark. 493, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 141 (Ark. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The appellant conlenls that this affidavit is not sufficient, or, rather, that it is really no affidavit. This affidavit was amendable. The record shows that evidence was heard in regard to the affidavit, which evidence does not appear in the bill of exceptions. If the court considered the affidavit insufficient, it may have treated it as amended, upon hearing the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The appellant conlenls that this affidavit is not sufficient, or, rather, that it is really no affidavit. This affidavit was amendable. The record shows that evidence was heard in regard to the affidavit, which evidence does not appear in the bill of exceptions. If the court considered the affidavit insufficient, it may have treated it as amended, upon hearing the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.W. 930, 67 Ark. 493, 1900 Ark. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-johnson-caruthers-rand-co-ark-1900.