Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Ark. 203

Moore & Co. v. Emerick

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1881-11-15

Hon. J. W. Martin, Circuit Judge. The costs should have been tendered with the plea. 29 Arle., 544 ; 1 Ch. PI., 478, and notes x and c; 2 Bing. N. O., 88 ; 1 lb., 693 ; 1 Oh. PI, 485, note A; 4 B. If plaintiffs had the right to sue in the courts of this State, and to maintain both actions,(32 Arle., 332,) they had the right to recover costs upon the merits. See also 1 Oh. PI., top p., 466 ; 1 Tidd’s Pr., (3 Am., 9 Hng.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1968

1 district · 3 state decisions

10188118901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Eakin, J.

¶1This appeal involves only a matter of costs. Moore & Co. pending an action of attachment by them against Emerick, in Mississippi, brought also asimilar action for the same debt in Lonoke county, and had an attachment there. He appeared and pleaded the proceedings in Mississippi, showing that, before the commencement of this suit, a quantity of property sufficient to pay the debt, had been attached in the Mississippi suit, and the writ returned to the court there, at the April term, 1879, and that the goods had been afterwards sold by order of the court, the proceeds paid to plaintiffs, and the debt satisfied. The answer further denied the grounds of attachment.

¶2The present action was commenced on the eighth day of January, 1879. The answer was filed on the fifth of March, 1880. The court, sitting as a jury, found for the plaintiffs, on the grounds of attachment, and also the facts above set forth with regard to the proceedings in ■ Mississippi, and held that, as the plaintiffs’ claim had been satisfied in full out of property, which at the commencement of this suit, had been already attached in another tribunal, they were not “under the circumstances” entitled to costs in this. Judgment was entered accordingly and plaintiffs appealed.

¶3The mere pending of a suit for the same cause of action in another State could not be pleaded in abatement or in bar. (32 Ark., 332.) Thq satisfaction of the debt through the former attachment might be shown by plea in the nature of a plea puis darreign continuance at common law. It was something which did not exist when this suit began, and could not be used to' show that this suit was wrongfully-brought. At common law the plea could not, generally, be-interposed as a complete .bar to the suit.

¶4It went only to the further continuance of it, conceding-that the prosecution of the suit to that time had been proper. Stephens on Pleading, 63; Chitty on Pleading, Vol. 1, p. 696.

¶5The plaintiffs should have had judgment for costs accrued up to the time of the plea.

¶6Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

/38/ark/203 · .json · Public domain