Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[graphic]

PAGE

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]

Logan ads. Scott.....
351 Peay adv. Freeman.

439

Lyle vs. Jackson connty.

63 Perkins vs. Clemm.

221

Perry advs. Brooks,

32

M.
Peterson vs. Manley.

528
Petillo vs. Hopson.

196

Macon et al. adve. Pope et al..... 644 Phillips vs. Cheatham.

80

Mabao ades. Owen....
347 | Phillips vs. Grayson..

769
Manly adre. Peterson.
628 Pope et al. vg. Macon et al.

644

Marshall adv. Ingram.

115 Price advs. Guthrie..

396

Matlock advs. Vaughan.
9 Price advs. Craig...

633

Yayo adv. Wilder..

325

Mayor & Co. adv. M. O. R. R. R. Co. 300

Mayson ads. Duval.

30

Mayson vs. Edington...

208 Quarles adv. Watkios.....

179

May advs. State use &c.

848

Maxwell ye. Guthrie..

702

R.

MeCaio advs. Ferguson,

210

MeCown adv. Moren.

93
Raines vs. Dooley...

829

McDermott vs. Cable.

200

Randolph vs. Thomas.

69

MeClintock vs. Lary.

216

Rawlings ve. Paty.

204

MeLain adve. Jones.

429

Reagan adv. Carter.

74

MeKay adv. S. B. Violet.

543 Redman adv. Harris, Wormly & Co. 636
Miles adv. Walworth.

653
Reed vs. Harvey.

44
Miller vs. Fraley et al..

735 Reed vs. Ryburn
Miller vs. Wood....

546
Reeves adv. Atchley.

233
Mis. O. R. R. R. Co. vs. Mayo, &c.. 300 Repfro vs. White...

195
Mitchell advs. Pate ad.

690
Rhoda adv. State.

156

Moore vs. Estes...

152

Rightor vs. Gray..

228

Moore adv. Taylor..

408

Roark adv. Grabam.

19

Moore adv. State..

550

Roane adv. Woodward.

523

Montgomery vs. Brittin.

322

Roberts advs. Hays.

193

Moren vs. McCown.

93
Roberts adv. Cheatham.

651

Morrison vs. Alphin.

136

Robinson vs. Bishop.

378

Morton vs. Scull.

289

Rogers vs. Duval.

77

Moseby adv. Brodie.

313
Rorie et al. advs. State.

726

Ross vs. State.....

198

N.

Rutherford advs. Jackson.

Ryburn advs. Reed.

47

Norris adv. George.

121

same adv. Brearly.

166

S.

same adv. same.

same adv. same.

614

Sanders advs. Alexander.

630

Noris et al. adve. Strawo.

642

Sanders vs. Ward.

241

Sargent adv. Cornish.

277

O.

Sartain advs. State.

541

Scott vs. Logan.

351

Omey vs. State.

281 Scull ad vs. Morton.

289

Open ads. Maban.
347 | Sessions vs. Peay.

39

Sessions vs. Hartsook.

519

P.
Sball, ad., adv. State..

601
Sherrer vs. Bullocks, ad.

729

Pack vs. State.

235 Simmons, ad. advs. Barkman.

1

Pankey vs. Webber.
205 Slaughter vs. Slaughter.

356
Parker ads. Barker.
390 Smith vs. Howard.

203
Pate ad. vs. Mitchell.
690 Smith vs. Carrigan.

555

Patterson vs. Hirsch.

112 Spence advs. Cossart.

374

Patterson vs. Thompson.

169 Starke adv. Crump.

131

Patterson ve. Fowler's ex.
469 State adv. Taffe..

34

Paty adv. Rawlings.

204 same vs. Rhoda.

166

Peny adv. Sessions.
39 same adv. Ross.

198
same adv. Brearly..
172 same adv. Pack.

235

24

169

[blocks in formation]

State vs. Wbite.....

same advs. Cooper.
same adv. Omey.
sume vs. Branum.
same vs. Sartain.
same v8. Moore..
same vs. Hagood.
same vs. Kline..
same vs. Shall, ad..
same adve. Hill, ex.
same ady. Biscoe.
same adv. Hogan et al.

same vs. Rorie et al... State use, &c., adv. Taylor.

same vs. Watts..
same ve. May.

same adv. Crow et al. Steamboat Violet vs. McKay. Stew rt ads. Alexander... Stillwell, ex. adv. Burke's ad.

same advs. Stone. Strawn vs. Norris.. Strong vs. Whatley.

same ve same Sullivan v8. Deadman.

275 Trappall adv Cunningham.... 557 278 Tucker vs. Bond....

268 281 Turnbull vs. Turnbull.

615 640

U. 541 550 553 Union County adv. Kelly.... 331 587 Union County vs. Kelly.

350 601 604

V. 592 636 Vaughan vs. Matlock.....

9 726 Veatch ye. Greenwood.

637 226 300

W. 348 084 Walker vs. Towns..

147 543 | Walker adv. Haralson.

416 18 Walworth ye. Miles.

653 294 Ward advs. Gill....

16 444 | Ward adv. Sanders.

241 542 Waters vs. Grace.

118 76 | Watkins vs. Quarles.

179 421 ) Watts adv. State use, &c..

304 14 Webber adv. Pankey.

205 Wells adv. Townsend.

581 Whatley adv. Strong.

76 same vs. same...

421 34 White adv. State.

276 225 White adve. Renfro.

195 408 | Wilder vs. Mayo...

825 69 Williams advs. Burr.

244 639 | Williams vs. Christian..

255 159 Willamowicz adv. Haller.

660 175 | Woodward vs. Roane.

523 731 Woodruff vs. Core..

341 370 Wood advs. Miller...

646 147 Worthen adv. Beckham..

720 681 Wright, Williams & Co. adv. Hill.. 530 510 | Wyatt adv. Hicks...

55

T.

Taffe ye. State.
Taylor vs. State use, &c.
Taylor vs. Moore.
Thomas adv. Randolph.
Thomas vs. Lanier...
Thompson vs. Patterson.
Thompson vs. Gossitt.
Thompson vs. Bertrand.
Toby vg. Haggerty.
Towns, ex. advs. Walker.
Townsend vs. Wells.
Trappall adv. Gray.

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS,

At the January Term, 1861.

[CONTINUED FROM VOL. XXII.]

BARKMAN ET AL. V8. SIMMONS.

Where a deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, purports to convey all of the debtor's property, and refers to a schedule as thereto attached, the assignment operates on the articles specified in the schedule ; but if no schedule is annexed, the deed is inoperative. Sach deed of assignment, being limited and controlled by the schedule intended

to be attached to it, is a special, not a general, assignment; and as by the schedule alone it can be ascertained what articles were intended to be conveyed for the benefit of the creditors, the failure to attach the schedule, renders the deed insensible, and parol evidence cannot be resorted to, as in case of a general assignment, to render it operative and effective.

Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court.

Hon. LEN B. GREEN, Circuit Judge.

Barkman et al. vs. Simmons.

[JANUARY

Lyon, for the appellant.

The Circuit Court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury, the deed of assignment, executed by Lockwood and Phillips, for the benefit of their creditors. The deed was for a fair and meritorious consideration; and divested Lockwood and Phillips of all ownership of the property at the the time the attachment was levied, at the suit of the defendant. It conveyed all their lands within the State, and all their goods and chattelsnecessarily including the clocks, for the conversion of which, the present suit is brought. This was a general assignment of all the debtors' property, and no schedule was, therefore, necessary; the deed, itself, was sufficiently descriptive of the property, and the schedule intended to be annexed, was for the convenience of parties in accounting for the proper disposition of the proceeds of sale. Fateh vs. Smith, 5 Mass. 42; Robins et al. vs. Embry et al., 1 Sm. & Mar. Ch. Rep. 207.

No schedule being necessary, the deed being sufficiently comprehensive to pass all of the debtor's property, the omission to attach one did not render the deed inoperative. Emerson vs. Knower, 8 Pick. 63; Duval vs. Raisin, 7 Misso. 449.

GALLAGHER, for appellee.

The only point in this case is, did the Circuit Court err in rejecting the deed offered as evidence by the plaintiffs below.

It is respectfully insisted that the deed was properly rejected, because it was defective in a most essential particular, and therefore inoperative and void. It purported to convey personal property as per schedule annexed; no schedule was annexed; the deed, therefore, was not perfected, and no property could be transferred by it. Driscoll et al. vs. Fiske et al., 21 Pick. 503; Wilks vs. Ferris, 5 John. 335.

It being clearly the intention of the parties, as expressed in the deed, that a schedule, descriptive of the articles intended to be conveyed, should be attached to it, the deed itself was inoperative, and nothing whatever passed by it, for

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »