Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Ark. 681

Hanner v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1875

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1875-11-15

Hod. Myron D. Kent, Circuit Judge. It was error to strike out the amended complaint. Sillivant v. Reardon, 5 Ark., 140. The complaint was filed before the issuing of the summons. Pleadings up to ordinary standard before justice’s courts. The case should be remanded.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1946

8 state decisions

5018751880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Harrison, J.:

¶1This was an-action of replevin, commenced before-a justice of the peace, for 3115 pounds of seed cotton and twenty-three bushels of corn.

¶2On applying for the order of delivery, the plaintiffs filed an • affidavit, in accordance with section 5035, Gantt’s Digest, in which the value of the property was stated to be $166.62. The affidavit contained a particular statement of their cause of action, and they filed no other.

¶3The defendant, after the property had been replevied, gave bond, and the same was restored to him. A jury trial was had, and there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for a portion of the cotton and corn. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court.

¶4After the plaintiffs had filed an amended complaint, and a demurrer had been sustained to it, the Circuit Court, upon motion of the defendant, dismissed the suit, upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction of the case, because no .written statement of the facts on which the action was founded, or other than that contained in the affidavit, Avas filed Avith the justice, The plaintiffs appealed to this court.

¶5As the affidavits filed contained a particular statement of the facts constituting the plaintiffs’ cause of action, it served the office of both complaint and affidavit, and the statute requiring a Avritten statement of the facts upon which the action is founded to be filed with the justice before the summons is issued, Avas substantially , if not literally, complied with. Jetton & Farris v. Smead,; Perkins v. Smith, 4 Blackf., 299; Minchrod v. Windoes, 29 Ind., 288.

¶6The Circuit Court erred in dismissing the suit; its judgment, is therefore overruled, and the cause remanded to it, with instructions to proceed to a determination of the cause according to laAv.

/30/ark/681 · .json · Public domain