St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hambright
| Decision Date | 21 September 1908 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HAMBRIGHT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Jacob M. Carter, Judge; motion to file assignment of judgment denied.
T. M. Mehaffy, for appellant.
L. A. Byrne, for appellee.
Hambright recovered judgment in the Miller Circuit Court against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company in the sum of $ 5,000, and said cause has been appealed to this court, and is now pending. Hambright executed an assignment of one-half of said judgment and one-half of his interest in the cause of action to his attorneys, and duly acknowledged the same, said assignment being made in conformity to the act of April 4, 1899 (sec. 4457, Kirby's Digest). The attorneys offer said assignment for filing in this court.
This act evidently refers to the filing of assignments of judgments or causes of action in the court wherein the judgments are rendered or the cause pending, and not in this court. Provision is made for the transfer to be entered on the record of the court where the judgment is recorded, or on the docket where a suit is pending, if it has not proceeded to judgment. That record may properly be included in the transcript to this court, and in that way notice is given in this court as well as in the lower court, and the object of the statute fully attained.
Questions of fact may well arise in regard to these assignments; and the trial courts, and not appellate courts, are the proper place to determine them. There is nothing in the language or purpose of the act that would indicate that it was intended that these assignments be filed in the Supreme Court. The assignment will not be filed in this court, and the clerk is directed to return it to the attorneys who presented it.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Ingram
...arises from the fact that the skid did break. 51 Ark. 467; 89 Id. 50; 90 Id. 326. The so-called expert evidence was inadmissible. 87 Ark. 242; Id. 257; 50 Id. 520; 108 Id. 3. Plaintiff assumed the risk. 82 Ark. 534; 73 Id. 55; 93 Id. 153; 107 Id. 341; 95 Id. 562; 56 Id. 206; 90 Id. 407; 82 ......
-
American Ins. Co. v. McGehee Liquor Co.
...thereon. Kirby's Digest, § 4457. We have held that that statute has no reference to cases pending in this court. Railway Co. v. Hambright, 87 Ark. 242, 112 S. W. 876. But, aside from any statute on the subject, the rights of a judgment creditor can be transferred to another so as to carry t......
-
American Insurance Company v. Mcgehee Liquor Company
... ... this court. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v ... Hambright, 87 Ark ... ...
-
Morphis v. State
... ... apply after judgment of conviction. St. Louisis, I. M. & S ... Ry. Co. v. Hambright ... ...