Munday v. Collier

Decided May 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1889-05-15

J. W. Butler, Judge. This was an action at law brought by the administrator of Mary Munday, on a note for $500, given to her by her husband, Daniel Munday. The latter answered, setting up that at the time the note was executed he and the payee were husband .and wife, and also that it had been satisfied by various payments; which are stated in detail.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1932

1 district · 1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Whether a note given by a husband to Ms wife for borrowed money constitutes a legal liability or not, it is clearly a claim which equity will enforce against Mm; and where the wife’s administrator sues the husband at law upon such note, the e.>ror, if any. in the form of the proceeding, will be waived by the defendant's failure to move a transfer to the proper docket.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Allen-West Commission Co. v. Grumbles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Husband and Wife:Contracts: Practice. The question of the application of the sums claimed to have been paid by the defendant, Munday, to jjjs wjfg) was fairly submitted to the jury; and they found that the amounts, if paid, were not made as payments on the note, and their verdict is conclusive.

¶2Whether the note constituted a legal liability or not, it was unquestionably an equitable claim against the husband. The error, if any, in bringing the action at law, was waived by the defendant’s failure to move a transfer to the proper docket. Organ v. Ry., 51 Ark., 235.

¶3Affirmed.