Moore v. McCloy

Decided June 21, 1902

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1902-06-21

John M. Elliott, Chancellor. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellant rented land to one Craig, with the privilege to Craig to purchase at a price named. Craig in 1894 executed to MeCloy & Trotter a mortgage on his crops for that year. That rent was due for said year to Moore, the appellant. Craig turned over to Moore, the appellant, five bales of cotton on the rent of 1894, of the value of $115, and to MeCloy & Trotter, eight bales of cotton of the crop of 1894.

Relies on Ward v. Derrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1940

5 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 →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) The appellant did not set up his defense in the replevin suit, and there was nothing shown that would have prevented him from doing it. It was a legal defense, and there is no reason for suing in equity. He became the owner of the five bales of cotton by delivery to him by Craig, and nothing could have prevented him from pleading this in defense to the replevin suit. Under Sand. &. IP. Dig., § 5722, a party to an action at law must interpose all of his defenses, legal as well as equitable, and cannot let judgment go against him, and then go into equity and seek to enjoin the judgment and set up an equitable defense which he might- have made in the suit at law. Ward v. Derrick, 57 Ark. 500.

¶2Affirmed.

Bunn, C. J., and Battle, J., not participating.