Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Ark. 155

Carter v. Goode

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1887

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1887-11-15

R. B. Rutherford, Judge. 1. . The circuit, court has no jurisdiction. Inasmuch as there was no violation of any law of the country where the act was done, there can be no right of action here. There being no law in the Cherokee Nation making it a trespass for one to shoot another’s mule trespassing on his premises, no right of action existed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1934

4 state decisions

30188718901900191019201930decided

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 →

Cocicrill, C. J.

¶1Goad sued Carter before a justice of the peace in Crawford county, Arkansas, to recover damages for an injury to a mule, the property of the plaintiff. Carter answered, and on the trial proved that the injury was inflicted in the Cherokee Nation, where he and Goad were at the time residing; that they were then, as now, citizens of Arkansas, and had no permit or license to reside in the Indian country; that at the time the injury was inflicted the mule was trespassing in Carter’s enclosure, which Goad knew it was in the habit of doiug, and that Goad had no redress whatever for the injury, and that the act was not punishable in the Indian Territory.

¶2On appeal to the circuit court there was judgment for the plaintiff.

¶3In order to maintain an^aetion of tort founded upon an injury to person or property, the act which is the cause of the injury and the foundation of the action must be actionable or punishable, at least, by the law of the place where the injury is done. Cooley on Torts, p. 471; Wharton on Conf. Laws, sec. 478; Holland v. Pack, Peck’s Tenn. Rep. 151; Le Forrest v. Tohman, 117 Mass., 109; Smith v. Condry, 1 How., 28; McLeod v. Railroad, 58 Vt., 727.

¶4It' is conceded, upon this record, that that state of case does not exist.

¶5Reverse and remand.

/50/ark/155 · .json · Public domain