Blevins v. Blevins

4 Ark. 441
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1842
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 Ark. 441 (Blevins v. Blevins) 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
Blevins v. Blevins, 4 Ark. 441 (Ark. 1842).

Opinion

By the Court,

Dickinson, J.

It has been ruled, in this Court, that petition and summons will only lie for the direct payment of money. This is certainly not a note of that character.' The whole of the agreement must be taken and construed together, for it is one entire contract. It is simply an acknowledgment of a debt due, to be paid out of a particular fund, placed in the hands of the creditor for that purpose. The legal definition of a note is, “ the agreement for the direct payment of money.” “ The payment,” says Chitty on Bills, at page 152, “ must be absolute, and not contingent, either as to the amount, credit, fund, or person.” The principle here stated decides the point before this Court. The fund being contingent, out of which the debt was to be paid, the plaintiff had no right of recovery, unless he averred and showed that the fund had failed, or was inadequate to the payment. The demurrer to the declaration was, therefore, improperly overruled; and, for this reason, the judgment .must be reversed, with costs.

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

Related

Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 1994
Maury v. Unruh
126 So. 113 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Road Improvement District No. 4 v. Southern Trust Co.
239 S.W. 8 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Henry v. Hazen
5 Ark. 401 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1844)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ark. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blevins-v-blevins-ark-1842.