Martin v. Tennison

Decided June 4, 1892

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1892-06-04

Tennison & McMahan brought suit against G. W. Manes before a justice of the peace, and procured an attachment to be levied on some cotton. From a judgment in plaintiffs’ favor defendant appealed, and executed a bond with T. J. Martin as surety, conditioned that the surety would satisfy the judgment of the circuit court to the extent of the value of said cotton. The circuit court sustained the attachment and entered judgment against Manes for the debt and costs.

Relies on Lowenstein v. McCadden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-06-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1942

6 state decisions

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 →

BaTTEE, J.

¶1The bond in question is not a statutory bond, because it does not contain the conditions required by section 4135 of Mansfield’s Digest. Instead of being conditioned to perform the judgment appealed from in the event it was affirmed on appeal, or if, on a trial anew in the circuit court, judgment was given against appellant, that he would pay such judgment, he and his surety thereby undertook to satisfy the same to the extent of the value of the cotton attached in the action. It does not conform to the requirements of the statute, or answer its purpose, and cannot be; enforced in the manner provided by section 4153 of Mansfield’s Digest. Lowenstein v. McCadden, 54 Ark. 13.

¶2The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the motion for a judgment nunc j?ro tunc is hereby dismissed.