Buffington v. Sipe

13 S.W. 763, 53 Ark. 235, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 72
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 10, 1890·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

COCKRILL, C. J.

It is unnecessary to inquire whether the action was legally begun by causing a summons to issue for the defendant, upon filing with the justice only a note endorsed paid, upon which the plaintiff appeared as co-maker with the defendant.

The justice, before or after issuing the summons, entered a written statement upon his docket to the effect that the plaintiff claimed that he was surety for the defendant on the note filed, that he had paid the sum of $31.00 for him, and brought the suit to recover that amount. Thereafter, the defendant obtained a change of venue, filed this record before a second justice, and entered his appearance to the cause. There is no room to contend that the second justice, who rendered the judgment, had not jurisdiction of a cause plainly stated in writing which was cognizable by him, as well asx of the person of the defendant.

The appellant’s contention, therefore, fails, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Buffington v. Sipe, 13 S.W. 763, 53 Ark. 235, 1890 Ark. LEXIS 72 (Ark. 1890).

13 S.W. 763 (Buffington v. Sipe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Konopka Et Ux. v. McAteer
169 A. 778 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Short v. Kennedy
35 S.W.2d 591 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)