A. Karcher Candy Company v. Hopkins
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holt, J. |
| Citation | A. Karcher Candy Company v. Hopkins, 202 S.W.2d 588, 211 Ark. 810 (Ark. 1947) |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | 4-8219 |
| Parties | A. Karcher Candy Company v. Hopkins |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Lawrence C Auten, Judge.
Reversed.
William R. Arendt and Josh W. McHughes, for appellant.
Ben D. Rowland and Philip McNemer, for appellee.
July 31, 1946, appellant, A. Karcher Candy Company, filed complaint in the Municipal Court of the City of Little Rock, in which it alleged: and prayed for judgment in this amount.
Appellee, Ewell Hopkins, filed demurrer in which he alleged: "That the complaint of the plaintiff (appellant) does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendant, Ewell Hopkins, for the reason that it shows upon its face that the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the Statute of Limitations."
The Municipal Court overruled the demurrer and entered judgment for appellant as prayed.
On appeal by appellee to the Circuit Court, appellee's demurrer was sustained, whereupon, appellant declined to plead further and its complaint was dismissed.
This appeal followed.
We think the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The present suit was on a judgment which appellant had obtained against appellee in the Little Rock Municipal Court April 14, 1941. Under the plain terms of § 8937, Pope's Digest, appellant had 10 years within which to maintain this action after the cause of action accrued. The cause of action accrued on the date the judgment was rendered. Koontz v. LaDow, 133 Ark. 523, 202 S.W. 686.
Section 8937 provides:
The early case of Hicks v. Brown, 38 Ark. 469, is controlling here. In that case the facts were that on the 23rd day of August, 1880, Hicks sued Brown in the Circuit Court in Greenwood, Sebastian County, upon a judgment which had been recovered against Brown before a justice of the peace in that county on August 24, 1870, for $ 200. The defense was that the cause of action sued upon had not accrued within five years next before the institution of the suit, and was therefore barred under § 3791, Gantt's Digest -- now § 8443, Pope's Digest, which provides:
There this court said: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Cross v. Manning
-
Malone v. Malone
...Ann. § 16-56-114 (1987). A cause of action on a judgment accrues on the date the judgment is rendered. A. Karcher Candy Co. v. Hopkins, 211 Ark. 810, 202 S.W.2d 588 (1947). This statute of limitations for actions on judgments may be tolled when payment is made on the judgment, thereby comme......