Johnson v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 25 April 1891 |
| Docket Number | 2 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. MEYER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Chicot Circuit Court in chancery, CARROLL D. WOOD, Judge.
Affirmed.
D. H. Reynolds for appellant.
U. M. & G. B. Rose and James F. Robinson for appellee.
This was a suit brought against W. W. Johnson to foreclose a mortgage on personal property executed by him to Meyer. Johnson having died, the cause was revived against his personal representative, and a decree of foreclosure rendered. We are asked to reverse the judgment of the court below because it erred in not dismissing the suit, it having been brought before a breach of the conditions of the mortgage. There was no motion to dismiss or other objection urged to the prosecution of the suit on this ground. On the contrary, the appellant's testator answered, and asked that a reference be made to a master to state an account between him and the plaintiff. The appellant cannot now for the first time object that the suit was prematurely brought.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
...cannot contend for a theory different from that raised in the trial court. 64 Ark. 252; 46 Ark. 103; 62 Ark. 76; 51 Ark. 351; 56 Ark. 263; 54 Ark. 442; 55 Ark. 163; Ark. 441; 71 Ark. 552; 70 Ark. 195; 66 Ark. 219; 71 Ark. 427; 63 Ark. 254, 305; 63 Ark. 268; 55 Ark. 163. The books were prope......
-
State v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. of Scranton, Pennsylvania
...first time upon appeal. ( Atkinson v. Singer Mfg. Co., 14 Misc. 630, 35 N.Y.S. 117; Logan v. Slade, 28 Fla. 699, 10 So. 25; Johnson v. Meyer, 54 Ark. 442, 16 S.W. 123.) Furthermore, should additional funds arise from the of such assets as still remain in the hands of the receiver, the suret......
-
Ferguson v. Carr
...MCCULLOCH, J. The objection that an action has been brought prematurely is waived by failure to object at the proper time. Johnson v. Meyer, 54 Ark. 442, 16 S.W. 123; Hickey v. Thompson, 52 Ark. 234, 12 475. It has also been held that the bringing in of a new cause of action which accrued a......
-
Malecek v. Tinsley
...of marking boundaries not being in issue below, it cannot be here. 46 Ark. 96; 49 Ark. 293; 50 Ark. 97; 52 Ark. 318; 51 Ark. 351, 441; 54 Ark. 442; 55 Ark. 163; 213; 56 Ark. 444, 499; 56 Ark. 263. The statute points out plainly what lands are subject to appropriation. Rev. Stat. U. S. § 231......