Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Ark. 408

Ashley v. May

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1844

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1844-01-15

This was au action of debt, determined in the Johnson Circuit Court, at March term, 1841, before the Hon. R. C. S. Brown, one of the circuit judges. Ashley sued Strayhorn and May, as partners, on a promissory note, for $284 31, executed by “A. M. Strayhorn & Co.the declaration contained but one count.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1844-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1959

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

10184418501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Sebastian, J.

¶2There are two objections raised by the plaintiffs in error to the proceedings below: the first of which is that the court rendered separate judgments against the defendant below. We do not see that any judgment was rendered at all except against one of the defendants, which was done on plaintiff’s motion to strike out his plea. There appears upon the record an entry of a judgment against the other defendant which is erased, and stated by the court to have been erroneously entered on the record. If indeed the judgment against May was taken at all, it was under the control of the court during the term; and as the court, during the same term, extended to the same defendant further time to plead, it would amount to a setting aside that judgment, which it was competent for the court to do. The plaintiff cannot allege as error, any thing done for his own benefit. As to the extension of time to May to plead, we see no error in that. No judgment appears against him, on record, and it was lawful for (he court to extend the time for pleading, as we must presume that they had sufficient reason for so doing. The non-suit was well taken, as the plaintiff was bound to pursue his remedy, and failed to do so. Judgment affirmed.

/5/ark/408 · .json · Public domain