Haglin v. Apple

45 S.W. 989, 65 Ark. 274, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 68
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 7, 1898·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Battle, J.

The facts set out in the second count of the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Akin v. Newell, 32 Ark. 605. The facts stated in the remainder of the complaint, in connection with the second count, do not show that plaintiff had no cause of action.

The first count is defective in not explicitly showing that the prosecution complained of was without probable cause, and had terminated iu favor of the plaintiff. But this may be amended if the plaintiff may deem it advisable to do so.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to the court to overrule the demurrer.

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

Haglin v. Apple, 45 S.W. 989, 65 Ark. 274, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 68 (Ark. 1898).

45 S.W. 989 (Haglin v. Apple) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coffelt v. Gordon
390 S.W.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1965)
Sawyer v. Shick
1911 OK 475 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)