Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Elder

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Elder

5 S.W.2d 299, 176 Ark. 1140, 1928 Ark. LEXIS 823

DecidedApril 16, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.W.2d 299 (Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Elder) 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

Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Elder, 5 S.W.2d 299, 176 Ark. 1140, 1928 Ark. LEXIS 823 (Ark. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Humphreys, J.

This case was affirmed (Purvis v. Elder, 175 Ark. 780, 1 S. W. (2d.) 36), whereupon appellee moved for judgment on the supersedeas bond, which was granted. In keeping with the order, the clerk of this court entered a judgment for $2,592, using as his guide the amount shown by the receiver’s report in the record. The judgment rendered in the trial court was not for a specific sum. Our attention has been called to the fact that the judgment was not for a specific amount but for a portion of the assets in the hands of the receiver, and that the receiver’s report appearing in the record was not his final report but, on the contrary, was his first report, which did not show all legal disbursements. In view of this fact it was error to enter a judgment here for a specific sum on the supersedeas bond, but tbe same should have fixed the liability on the bond, and the ease should have been remanded with direction that the amount thereof be ascertained by the trial court ■after allowing* the receiver such amounts as have been paid out >by him on order o'f the trial court.

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

Humphreys, J.

This case was affirmed (Purvis v. Elder, 175 Ark. 780, 1 S. W. (2d.) 36), whereupon appellee moved for judgment on the supersedeas bond, which was granted. In keeping with the order, the clerk of this court entered a judgment for $2,592, using as his guide the amount shown by the receiver’s report in the record. The judgment rendered in the trial court was not for a specific sum. Our attention has been called to the fact that the judgment was not for a specific amount but for a portion of the assets in the hands of the receiver, and that the receiver’s report appearing in the record was not his final report but, on the contrary, was his first report, which did not show all legal disbursements. In view of this fact it was error to enter a judgment here for a specific sum on the supersedeas bond, but tbe same should have fixed the liability on the bond, and the ease should have been remanded with direction that the amount thereof be ascertained by the trial court ■after allowing* the receiver such amounts as have been paid out >by him on order o'f the trial court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.W.2d 299, 176 Ark. 1140, 1928 Ark. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-planters-bank-trust-co-v-elder-ark-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack