Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 Ark. 416

Garabaldi v. Wright

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1889-11-15

J. W. Martin, Judge. Garabaldi and Wright were partners in a stock farm, and becoming dissatisfied undertook on the 24th day of December, 1886, to settle the affairs of the partnership. Wright contends that such settlement was consummated. This is denied by Garabaldi, who, on the 3d day of P'ebruary, 1887, filed his bill in chancery against Wright for a dissolution of the partnership and a settlement between the parties.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1978

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

201889189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Hemingway, J.

¶1Conflict of jurisdiction. Although property, of which conversion is alleged, is in the custody of a Chancery Court, an action for its conversion may be brought in a law court, since it does not affect the possession of the property, or interfere with its custody.

¶2Actions between same parties. If the chattels belonged to the appellee, and were converted by the appellant, this was a wrong for which a right of action arose to the appellee individually; and although there was a pending suit in chancery between the parties for an account and settlement of partnership affairs, the appellee could bring a separate action for the conversion, and was not required to litigate this claim in the chancery suit. If the objects of two suits are different, they may progress at the same time, although the thing about, or in reference to which, they are brought, is the same in each case. Wilmer v. A. & R. Ry. Co., 11 Myers Fed. Dec., sec. 300; Buck v. Colboth, 3 Wal., 334; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn., 485.

¶3The charge of the court fairly submitted the cause to the jury under the law as we have stated it, and the judgment will be affirmed.

/52/ark/416 · .json · Public domain