In re Read

Supreme Court of Arkansas

In re Read

34 Ark. 239

DecidedMay 15, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Ark. 239 (In re Read) 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

In re Read, 34 Ark. 239 (Ark. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Harrison, J.

The appeal in this case is from an order of the Chicot circuit court, approving the bond of Samuel E. "Wbithorne, as county treasurer, against objections filed thereto by appellant.

The only point in this case, not decided in the case of Hodgkin vs. Holland, collector, etc., ante, is this: the bond first offered having been rejected, and the treasurer required to give a good and sufficient one in the penal sum of $60,000, the bond in question, presented under the order, was in the sum of $65,000.

"We are unable to see how the validity of the bond could be affected by the penalty being larger than that required. If not a literal, it was a substantial and strict, compliance with the order.

Affirmed.

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

Harrison, J.

The appeal in this case is from an order of the Chicot circuit court, approving the bond of Samuel E. "Wbithorne, as county treasurer, against objections filed thereto by appellant.

The only point in this case, not decided in the case of Hodgkin vs. Holland, collector, etc., ante, is this: the bond first offered having been rejected, and the treasurer required to give a good and sufficient one in the penal sum of $60,000, the bond in question, presented under the order, was in the sum of $65,000.

"We are unable to see how the validity of the bond could be affected by the penalty being larger than that required. If not a literal, it was a substantial and strict, compliance with the order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ark. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-read-ark-1879.