Robinson v. Belt

Eighth Circuit

Robinson v. Belt

100 F. 718, 40 C.C.A. 664, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1900

DocketNo. 1,320

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 F. 718 (Robinson v. Belt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Belt, 100 F. 718, 40 C.C.A. 664, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303 (8th Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, Oircuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Every question raised by the assignments of error in this case has been determined by the judgment of this court when it was previously here (Belt v. Robinson, 63 Fed. 90, 11 C. C. A. 39, 27 U. S. App. 273), and by the judgment of the supreme court of Arkansas in the case of King v. Dry-Goods Co., 60 Ark. 1, 28 S. W. 514, where the validity of the same deed of trust was in issue. The act of congress adopted and put in force in the Indian Territory the Arkansas statutes, including the statute on the subject of assignments for the benefit of creditors, and we have uniformly held that it was the duty of this court and the courts in the Indian Territory to follow the construction given to those statutes by the supreme court of Arkansas. Sanger v. Flow, 1 C. C. A. 56, 48 Fed. 152, 4 U. S. App. 32; Appolos v. Brady, 1 C. C. A. 299, 49 Fed. 401, 4 U. S. Ápp. 209. The assignments of error not covered by the opinions [719]*719in the cases referred to have not the least merit, and, on the authority of those cases, the judgments of the United States court of appeals in the Indian Territory and of the United States court for the Northern district of the Indian Territory are each affirmed.

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

CALDWELL, Oircuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Every question raised by the assignments of error in this case has been determined by the judgment of this court when it was previously here (Belt v. Robinson, 63 Fed. 90, 11 C. C. A. 39, 27 U. S. App. 273), and by the judgment of the supreme court of Arkansas in the case of King v. Dry-Goods Co., 60 Ark. 1, 28 S. W. 514, where the validity of the same deed of trust was in issue. The act of congress adopted and put in force in the Indian Territory the Arkansas statutes, including the statute on the subject of assignments for the benefit of creditors, and we have uniformly held that it was the duty of this court and the courts in the Indian Territory to follow the construction given to those statutes by the supreme court of Arkansas. Sanger v. Flow, 1 C. C. A. 56, 48 Fed. 152, 4 U. S. App. 32; Appolos v. Brady, 1 C. C. A. 299, 49 Fed. 401, 4 U. S. Ápp. 209. The assignments of error not covered by the opinions [719]*719in the cases referred to have not the least merit, and, on the authority of those cases, the judgments of the United States court of appeals in the Indian Territory and of the United States court for the Northern district of the Indian Territory are each affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 F. 718, 40 C.C.A. 664, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-belt-ca8-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack