Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

154 U.S. 583

14 S. Ct. 1169

Docket No. 47.

Jacoway v. Denton

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted November 14, 3871.

Decided April 1, 1872.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1872-04-01

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE ARKANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1872

2 counsel of record

Relies on National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Sevier v. Haskell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1872-04-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE ARKANSAS.

¶2Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, followed.

¶3The case is stated in the opinion.

¶4Mr. Justice Swayne

¶5delivered the opinion of the court.

¶6This case is also before us upon a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.

¶7The defendant in error brought suit in the Circuit Court of Yell County to the September term, 1866, upon the writing obligatory executed to him by William D. Jacoway, deceased, on the 4th of October, 1860, for the sum of $4500 payable one year from date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the maturity of the obligation until its payment. The administrator interposed three pleas:

¶8(1) That the consideration of the obligation was the purchase of slaves, and that they were all emancipated by the constitution of Arkansas adopted in 1864.

¶9(2) That the slaves were emancipated by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the consideration of the obligation thereby wholly failed.

¶10(3) That the contract was originally null and void.

¶11The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrers and gave judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed in *584the declaration. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court affirmed the judgment.

¶12Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. P. Phillips for plaintiffs in error.

¶13No appearance for defendant in error.

¶14After what we have said in Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, just decided, it is sufficient to remark that the record discloses no question cognizable by this court.

¶15The writ of error is therefore dismissed.

/154/us/583 · .json · Public domain