King v. Connevy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

King v. Connevy

52 Ark. 115

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 Ark. 115 (King v. Connevy) 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

King v. Connevy, 52 Ark. 115 (Ark. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Replevin : Variances Practice. It was- error to quash the order of delivery on demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint stated a good cause of action, and the demurrer should have been overruled. If there was a fatal variance between the description of the horse in the mortgage, and the one taken under the order of delivery, it was a matter to be availed of at the trial. The variance between the two as set forth was immaterial in any event.

Reverse and remand for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

Replevin : Variances Practice. It was- error to quash the order of delivery on demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint stated a good cause of action, and the demurrer should have been overruled. If there was a fatal variance between the description of the horse in the mortgage, and the one taken under the order of delivery, it was a matter to be availed of at the trial. The variance between the two as set forth was immaterial in any event.

Reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Ark. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-connevy-ark-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack