Bell v. Matheny

36 Ark. 572

Opinion

Harrison, J.

Neither his lien for rent, nor his attachment for it, gave the plaintiff' a right to the possession of the corn; and though there was some evidence that it had been set apart as intended for him, there was no evidence that the rent was payable in corn, or that he had accepted it, or even knew of such setting apart.

There was no evidence to sustain the verdict, and the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Reversed and remanded.