Field v. Anderson

18 S.W. 1038, 55 Ark. 546, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 57
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided March 12, 1892·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was necessary for the appellant either to produce the note or to account for it, in order to show that he was entitled to collect it. The allegation that it was lost was material. Norris v. Kellogg, 7 Ark., 118. That allegation was denied by the answer, it was not proved upon the trial, and the note was not produced. If there were no other reason for dismissing the complaint, that would be .sufficient.

Affirm.

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

Field v. Anderson, 18 S.W. 1038, 55 Ark. 546, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 57 (Ark. 1892).

18 S.W. 1038 (Field v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steinfeld v. Bolen
145 P. 843 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1915)
Reynolds v. Morton
136 P. 795 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1913)
Caffey v. Allison
154 S.W. 202 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Ward v. Munson
63 N.W. 498 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)