Moore v. McCloy

69 S.W. 311, 70 Ark. 505, 1902 Ark. LEXIS 102
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided June 21, 1902·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The appellant did not set up his defense in the replevin suit, and there was nothing shown that would have prevented him from doing it. It was a legal defense, and there is no reason for suing in equity. He became the owner of the five bales of cotton by delivery to him by Craig, and nothing could have prevented him from pleading this in defense to the replevin suit. Under Sand. &. IP. Dig., § 5722, a party to an action at law must interpose all of his defenses, legal as well as equitable, and cannot let judgment go against him, and then go into equity and seek to enjoin the judgment and set up an equitable defense which he might- have made in the suit at law. Ward v. Derrick, 57 Ark. 500.

Affirmed.

Bunn, C. J., and Battle, J., not participating.

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

Moore v. McCloy, 69 S.W. 311, 70 Ark. 505, 1902 Ark. LEXIS 102 (Ark. 1902).

69 S.W. 311 (Moore v. McCloy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arkansas Power Light Company v. Liebe, Admx.
144 S.W.2d 29 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1940)
Langless v. McCarthy
277 S.W. 27 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
Southern Telephone Co. v. Banks
158 S.W. 158 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Gorman v. Bonner
97 S.W. 282 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)