Kempner v. Dooley

31 S.W. 145, 60 Ark. 526, 1895 Ark. LEXIS 196
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMay 11, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 31 S.W. 145 (Kempner v. Dooley) 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
Kempner v. Dooley, 31 S.W. 145, 60 Ark. 526, 1895 Ark. LEXIS 196 (Ark. 1895).

Opinion

Hughes, J.

1. Discretion, as to amendments. (after stating the facts). It was in the sound discretion of the circuit court to permit or refuse to permit the amendment offered by the appellee, Dooley, to be made at the time it was offered, and the court is of the opinion that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the amendment to Dooley’s answer, after the cause had been heard upon the pleadings and evidence.

% Marshaling assets. When Allen Adams had mortgaged his land to secure the payment of the debt of B. L. Adams, be stood in the attitude and had the equities of a security for the payment of the debt of B. B. Adams, and his interest should have been protected by the sale first of B. B. Adams’ land mortgaged to secure payment of the same debt. When the principal and surety each mortgages his own property to secure the debt of the principal, the surety is entitled to have the property of the principal sold first, and the proceeds of the sale applied in satisfaction of the debt. Keel v. Levy, 19 Oregon, 450; James v. Jacques, 26 Tex. 320; Neimcewicz v. Gahn, 3 Paige, Ch. 614; Pacific Guano Co. v. Anglin, 82 Ala. 492.

3. Duty of chancery court to protect infants. In. this case, however, there is no appeal from the decree that Allen Adams’ land should be first sold, by any of the heirs of Allen Adams. But one of these heirs, who was made a party to the suit, was an infant at the time of the decree, and still is, and, though she has not appealed, a court of chancery will protect her interest, as minors in a suit in equity are wards of a court of chancery. “The chancellor is the guardian of all infants whose rights are drawn in question before him, and it is our duty to see that they are protected.” Tillar v. Cleveland, 47 Ark. 288. For the error in ordering the interest'of the minor heir in Allen Adams’ land first sold to satisfy the debt of B. L. Adams, the decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions for a decree, and for further proceedings according to law, and not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

Related

Stolz v. Franklin
531 S.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1975)
In Re the Guardianship of Ivarsson
375 P.2d 509 (Washington Supreme Court, 1962)
Harris v. Starr
288 S.W.2d 332 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1956)
Haden v. Eaves
226 P.2d 457 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1950)
Davis v. Eshelman
160 P.2d 661 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1945)
In Re Deming
73 P.2d 764 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
Deming v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
192 Wash. 190 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
Spotts v. Spotts
55 S.W.2d 977 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Austin v. Dermott Canning Co.
34 S.W.2d 773 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
Lowery v. Richards
1926 OK 148 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Robbins-Sanford Mercantile Co. v. Johnson
266 S.W. 260 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Glade Coal Mining Co. v. Harris
63 S.E. 873 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Holmes
114 S.W. 221 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 S.W. 145, 60 Ark. 526, 1895 Ark. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kempner-v-dooley-ark-1895.