Hempstead County v. Bank of Hope

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hempstead County v. Bank of Hope

84 S.W. 1030, 74 Ark. 37, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 28, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.W. 1030 (Hempstead County v. Bank of Hope) 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

Hempstead County v. Bank of Hope, 84 S.W. 1030, 74 Ark. 37, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 399 (Ark. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) 'The statement filed with the county clerk under section 6020 of Kirby’s Digest showed that the bank had on the first Monday in June, the time required to estimate the assessable value, property valued at $25,627. This was the ¿mount for which the bank should have been assessed. But the testimony of the cashier in explaining a statement made by the Bank of Hope as to the condition of its business on the 1st day of July, 1901, showed that the bank had on hand at that time a surplus of $3,500. The circuit court seems to have taken this and the capital stock as the correct amount for assessment. This was an error against the bank. • But the bank is not appealing. There was no testimony in the case except that of the cashier, and this certainly shows that the trial court committed no error of which the county could complain. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) 'The statement filed with the county clerk under section 6020 of Kirby’s Digest showed that the bank had on the first Monday in June, the time required to estimate the assessable value, property valued at $25,627. This was the ¿mount for which the bank should have been assessed. But the testimony of the cashier in explaining a statement made by the Bank of Hope as to the condition of its business on the 1st day of July, 1901, showed that the bank had on hand at that time a surplus of $3,500. The circuit court seems to have taken this and the capital stock as the correct amount for assessment. This was an error against the bank. • But the bank is not appealing. There was no testimony in the case except that of the cashier, and this certainly shows that the trial court committed no error of which the county could complain. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W. 1030, 74 Ark. 37, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hempstead-county-v-bank-of-hope-ark-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack