Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ark. 235

Buffington v. Sipe

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 10, 1890

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1890-05-10

John S. Little, Judge. The justice had no jurisdiction. Nothing was filed except a note endorsed paid in full, upon which plaintiff appeared as a co-maker with defendant. Mansf. Dig., secs. 3900, 4036, 6402; Ark. Justice, sec. 254; 6 Ark., 182; 16 Ark., 371; 23 Ark., no; 6 Ark., 41; 7 Ark., 403; 9 Ark., 481; 10 Ark., 226.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1933

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-05-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COCKRILL, C. J.

¶1It is unnecessary to inquire whether the action was legally begun by causing a summons to issue for the defendant, upon filing with the justice only a note endorsed paid, upon which the plaintiff appeared as co-maker with the defendant.

¶2The justice, before or after issuing the summons, entered a written statement upon his docket to the effect that the plaintiff claimed that he was surety for the defendant on the note filed, that he had paid the sum of $31.00 for him, and brought the suit to recover that amount. Thereafter, the defendant obtained a change of venue, filed this record before a second justice, and entered his appearance to the cause. There is no room to contend that the second justice, who rendered the judgment, had not jurisdiction of a cause plainly stated in writing which was cognizable by him, as well asx of the person of the defendant.

¶3The appellant’s contention, therefore, fails, and the judgment is affirmed.

/53/ark/235 · .json · Public domain