Smith v. Finley
This text of 52 Ark. 373 (Smith v. Finley) 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.
Opinion
The justice’s record does not show jurisdiction of the person of the defendant Finley unless by inference. The parol testimony which was heard at the trial, and was admissible to show want of jurisdiction (Jones v. Terry, 43 Ark., 230; Visart v. Bush, 46 ib., 153), is conclusive of that fact. The judgment was, therefore, void.
The proof was clear that the contract was usurious. The plaintiff, therefore, took nothing by his purchase at the trustee’s sale.
Affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 Ark. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-finley-ark-1889.