Smith v. Jackson
Decision Date | 25 March 1918 |
Docket Number | 249 |
Citation | 202 S.W. 227,133 Ark. 334 |
Parties | SMITH v. JACKSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
R. L Montgomery and W. H. Arnold, for appellant.
The instruction given by the court was not based upon the evidence. Nor is it the law. It was misleading and prejudicial. 59 Ark. 417; 37 Id. 333; Ib. 593; Ib 580; 90 Id. 78; 90 Id. 278, 378; 80 Id. 260; 101 Id. 548; 70 Id. 441; 74 Id. 19; 71 Id. 518; 69 Id. 380; 78 Id. 177; 41 Id. 382; 58 Id. 324; 125 Id. 260.
Searcy & Parks, for appellee.
1. There is no error in the instruction. It states the law. 100 Ark. 336.
2. The verdict is supported by the evidence. It was purely a question of fact. The sale was bogus and there was collusion.
The issue tried in the court below was whether an alleged sale of certain personal property made by Paul Smith to his brother, Sidney Smith, was made in fraud of Paul Smith's creditors. It was insisted that if such a sale had been made that it was fraudulent, and therefore void. As bearing upon that question, counsel for Sidney Smith, who was the plaintiff in an action in replevin brought to recover the possession of the property in question, asked the court to charge that fraud is never presumed but must be proved, whereupon the court charged the jury as follows:
An exception was saved to that portion of the charge not given at counsel's request. The issue was found against Smith and he has prosecuted this appeal.
We think the court erred in giving this instruction. It is defended upon the ground that this court has approved the law as announced in this instruction. So it has, but the language was used either in cases where the court was passing on a chancellor's finding of fact or where the court was discussing the question of the sufficiency of testimony. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Camden v. Arkansas Light & Power Company
...has no powers except those expressly conferred by the Legislature or those necessarily or fairly implied as incident or essential thereto. 133 Ark. 334; 121 Id. 606; 116 125. See, also, 248 Ill. 264; 93 N.E. 274; 211 U.S. 265; 219 Id. 467. A city has no power to regulate rates for utilities......
-
Healey v. Cockrill
... ... applicable to the facts of this case have been repeatedly ... stated by this court. In the case of Little Rock & Fort ... Smith Ry. Co. v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298, the court ... said: "The rule is firmly established that the master is ... civilly liable for the tortious acts of ... ...
-
Thiel v. Dove, 5-1635
...fact in evidence is sufficient to support an inference of guilt, negligence, or the like. Blankenship v. State, supra; Smith v. Jackson, 133 Ark. 334, 202 S.W. 227; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Southeast Arkansas v. Bell, 194 Ark. 671, 109 S.W.2d 115. It is for the jury to say whether the part......
-
McMillion v. Armstrong, 5-3270
...to support an inference of guilt, negligence, or the like. Blankenship v. State, supra [55 Ark. 244, 18 S.W. 54]; Smith v. Jackson, 133 Ark. 334, 202 S.W. 227; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Southeast Arkansas v. Bell, 194 Ark. 671, 109 S.W.2d 115. It is for the jury to say whether the particula......