Liddell v. Bodenheimer, Landau & Co.

Decision Date07 April 1906
Citation95 S.W. 475
PartiesLIDDELL v. BODENHEIMER, LANDAU & CO.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court; Clay County; Allen Hughes, Judge.

Action by Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. against Robert Liddell. From an order modifying a judgment in favor of the defendant, and from an order for the entry nunc pro tunc of an order that the action be dismissed as to plaintiffs and revived in the name of S. D. Hawkins as plaintiff, defendant appeals. Nunc pro tune order affirmed, and order modifying the judgment reversed.

F. G. Taylor, for appellant. J. D. Block, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

An action was brought in the name of Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. against Robert Liddell, before a justice of the peace of Clay county, to recover the possession of certain personal property. Plaintiffs recovered judgment, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court.

In the circuit court (the term is not shown), plaintiffs represented to the court that the action was brought without their consent, and asked that it be dismissed, and thereupon S. D. Hawkins, who had possession of the property in controversy, and claimed the same, appeared and asked that he be substituted for plaintiffs, and that the action proceed in his name as such. The action was dismissed as to Bodenheimer, Landau & Co., and revived in the name of S. D. Hawkins as plaintiff. This order was not entered of record.

At the January, 1894, term of the Clay circuit court for the Eastern district of Clay county, the action proceeded in the names of Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. and S. D. Hawkins, plaintiffs, against Robert Lidell and the John Matthews Apparatus Company, defendants, and Hawkins recovered judgment against the defendants for the property in controversy. This proceeding was had after the action was dismissed as to Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. On motion of the defendants the judgment in favor of Hawkins was set aside, and a new trial was granted.

At the August, 1895, term of the Clay circuit court, for the Eastern district of Clay county, the action was called for trial, and the plaintiffs failed to appear. Judgment by default was rendered against Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. in favor of the defendant, Robert Liddell, for the property in controversy and costs.

In August, 1901, Bodenheimer, Landau & Co. filed an application in Clay circuit court, for the Eastern district, of Clay county, in which they stated the foregoing facts, and asked that the order omitted from the record be entered nunc...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Liddell v. Bodenheimer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1906
    ... ... 1056; 24 Neb. 103; 123 Ind. 518; ... 30 Ga. 929; 57 Miss. 730; 6 How. 260 ...          BATTLE, ... J. HILL, C. J., did not participate ...           ...           ... BATTLE, J ...           An ... action was brought in the name of Bodenheimer, Landau & Company against Robert Liddell, before a justice of the peace ... of Clay County, to recover the possession of certain personal ... property. Plaintiffs recovered judgment, and the defendant ... appealed to the circuit court ...          In the ... circuit court (the term is not ... ...
  • Midyett v. Kirby
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1917
    ...It should be of sufficient character and weight to overcome the written memorial. Bobo v. State, 40 Ark. 224; Liddell v. Bodenheimer, 78 Ark. 364, 95 S. W. 475, 115 Am. St. Rep. 42; Murphy v. Citizens' Bank, 84 Ark. 100, 104 S. W. 187, 934; Sloan v. Williams, 118 Ark. 593, 177 S. W. The evi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT