Brittin v. Mitchell

4 Ark. 92
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1842
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Ark. 92 (Brittin v. Mitchell) 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
Brittin v. Mitchell, 4 Ark. 92 (Ark. 1842).

Opinion

By the Court,

Dickinson, J.

That the Court properly overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff below, we have no doubt.

There is, certainly, no variance; and we do not think the objection of the bond being payable to Samuel or Lucy Gray, tenable. The party, unquestionably, owed the money to the estate of Matthew Gray, deceased; and he executed the bond to the administrator and the ad-ministratrix; and because the writing describes it as payable to either one or the other, that cannot vitiate it. The word “or,” used in the instrument, must be taken to mean “ and.”

Under our statute, “ all bonds, bills, notes, agreements, and contracts, in writing, for the payment of money or property,” are assignable. This is, certainly, one of that description, and therefore assignable.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Williams v. State
137 S.W. 927 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ark. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittin-v-mitchell-ark-1842.