American rule in Arkansas

1988This line of cases was followed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in White v. Associates Commercial Corp., 20 Ark.App. 140 , 725 S.W.2d 7 (1987), in which the court stated: "Notwithstanding that the parties have contracted for recovery of attorney's fees, the Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that a party cannot recover attorney's fees unless such fees are expressly provided for by statute." See also Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986), where we discussed the American rule concerning attorney's fees and the "common fund" exception.

1988This line of cases was followed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in White v. Associates Commercial Corp., 20 Ark.App. 140 , 725 S.W.2d 7 (1987), in which the court stated: "Notwithstanding that the parties have contracted for recovery of attorney's fees, the Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that a party cannot recover attorney's fees unless such fees are expressly provided for by statute." See also Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986), where we discussed the American rule concerning attorney's fees and the "common fund" exception.

1944Particularly we mention the language in Booe v. Vinson: “The American rule is likewise given in Heaton v. Dickson, 153 Mo. App. 312 , 133 S. W. 162 , citing Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716 , and numerous other cases.

1944Particularly we mention the language in Booe v. Vinson: “The American rule is likewise given in Heaton v. Dickson, 153 Mo. App. 312 , 133 S. W. 162 , citing Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716 , and numerous other cases.

2026Gibson v. Buonauito, 2022 Ark. 206 , at 12, 655 S.W.3d 59 , 67.

2026Gibson v. Buonauito, 2022 Ark. 206 , at 12, 655 S.W.3d 59 , 67.

2022Walther v. Wilson, 2019 Ark. 105, at 5 , 571 S.W.3d 897, 900 ; Lake View Sch.

2022Walther v. Wilson, 2019 Ark. 105, at 5 , 571 S.W.3d 897, 900 ; Lake View Sch.

2017Chrisco v. Sun Indus., 304 Ark. 227 , 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).

2017Chrisco v. Sun Indus., 304 Ark. 227 , 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).

1997Millsap v. Lane, 286 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986) (citing Trustees v. Greenough, 15 Otto 527 , 105 U.S. 527 , 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882)).

1997Millsap v. Lane, 286 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986) (citing Trustees v. Greenough, 15 Otto 527 , 105 U.S. 527 , 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882)).

2026Crain v. Crain, 2025 Ark.

2026Crain v. Crain, 2025 Ark.

2025See Affordable Bail Bonds, supra; Wright, supra. Therefore, we hold that the trial court committed no error in finding that the issue of sufficiency of service had been waived and in denying Connie’s motion to dismiss. 11 Connie’s remaining argument is that the trial court’s award of $16,500 in attorney’s fees to Boggs should be reversed.3 Connie cites Fox v. AAA U-Rent It, 341 Ark. 483 , 17 S.W.3d 481 (2000), where the supreme court stated that Arkansas follows the American rule, which requires every litigant to bear his or her attorney’s fees, absent a state statute to the contrary.

2025See Affordable Bail Bonds, supra; Wright, supra. Therefore, we hold that the trial court committed no error in finding that the issue of sufficiency of service had been waived and in denying Connie’s motion to dismiss. 11 Connie’s remaining argument is that the trial court’s award of $16,500 in attorney’s fees to Boggs should be reversed.3 Connie cites Fox v. AAA U-Rent It, 341 Ark. 483 , 17 S.W.3d 481 (2000), where the supreme court stated that Arkansas follows the American rule, which requires every litigant to bear his or her attorney’s fees, absent a state statute to the contrary.

2024City of Little Rock v. Nelson, 2020 Ark. 19 , 592 S.W.3d 666 .

2024City of Little Rock v. Nelson, 2020 Ark. 19 , 592 S.W.3d 666 .

2016Stokes v. Stokes, 2016 Ark. 182, at 10 , 491 S.W.3d 113, 120 ; Carter v. Cline, 2013 Ark, 398, 430 S.W.3d 22 ; Griffin v. First Nat’l Bank of Crossett, 318 Ark. 848 , 888 S.W.2d 306 (1994).

2016Stokes v. Stokes, 2016 Ark. 182, at 10 , 491 S.W.3d 113, 120 ; Carter v. Cline, 2013 Ark, 398, 430 S.W.3d 22 ; Griffin v. First Nat’l Bank of Crossett, 318 Ark. 848 , 888 S.W.2d 306 (1994).

2015Id. at 318 , 871 S.W.2d at 577 .

2015Id. at 318 , 871 S.W.2d at 577 .

2006Sutton v. Myrick, 39 Ark. 424 (1882).

2006Sutton v. Myrick, 39 Ark. 424 (1882).

2000Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939).

2000Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939).

2000Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939).

2000Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (1939).

1997Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227 , 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990); Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986); see Hall v. Thompson, 283 Ark. 26 , 669 S.W.2d 905 (1984); Harper v. Wheatley Implement Co., Inc., 278 Ark. 27 , 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982).

1997Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227 , 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990); Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986); see Hall v. Thompson, 283 Ark. 26 , 669 S.W.2d 905 (1984); Harper v. Wheatley Implement Co., Inc., 278 Ark. 27 , 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982).

1990This is, of course, the determination that must be made under A.C.A. 7-7-304 (a)(3), which states: If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office or position at the preferential primary election, the names of the two (2) candidates who received the highest number of votes for an office or position shall be printed upon the ballots at the general primary election. ___________. * Under the "American rule," adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court, the voters' knowledge is not material, and the votes are to be counted. 133 A.L.R. 340 (1941); Swepston v. Barton, supra; Collins v.

1989The Arkansas Supreme Court specifically established the validity of spendthrift trusts in Bowlin v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 131 Ark. 97 , 198 S.W. 288 (1917), where it rejected the English doctrine condemning spendthrift trusts and adopted the American doctrine upholding them "both upon reason and because the American doctrine is supported by the increasing weight of authority." 131 Ark. at 101 .

1989The Arkansas Supreme Court specifically established the validity of spendthrift trusts in Bowlin v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 131 Ark. 97 , 198 S.W. 288 (1917), where it rejected the English doctrine condemning spendthrift trusts and adopted the American doctrine upholding them "both upon reason and because the American doctrine is supported by the increasing weight of authority." 131 Ark. at 101 .

1989Recently, in Cotham v. First National Bank of Hot Springs, 287 Ark. 167 , 697 S.W.2d 101 (1985), the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of spendthrift trusts in rejecting an attempt by the beneficiaries to terminate a spendthrift trust.

1989Recently, in Cotham v. First National Bank of Hot Springs, 287 Ark. 167 , 697 S.W.2d 101 (1985), the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of spendthrift trusts in rejecting an attempt by the beneficiaries to terminate a spendthrift trust.

1988Arkansas Code Ann. § 4-56-101 (1987) provides that "a provision in a promissory note for the payment of reasonable attorney's fees ... is enforceable as a contract of indemnity." In Geyer v. First Arkansas Development Finance Corp., 245 Ark. 694 , 434 S.W.2d 301 (1968), we held that attorney's fees were expressly provided for by this statute, where the promissory note incorporated by reference the mortgage, which provided for the payment of reasonable attorney's fees.

1988Arkansas Code Ann. § 4-56-101 (1987) provides that "a provision in a promissory note for the payment of reasonable attorney's fees ... is enforceable as a contract of indemnity." In Geyer v. First Arkansas Development Finance Corp., 245 Ark. 694 , 434 S.W.2d 301 (1968), we held that attorney's fees were expressly provided for by this statute, where the promissory note incorporated by reference the mortgage, which provided for the payment of reasonable attorney's fees.

1988This line of cases was followed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in White v. Associates Commercial Corp., 20 Ark.App. 140 , 725 S.W.2d 7 (1987), in which the court stated: "Notwithstanding that the parties have contracted for recovery of attorney's fees, the Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that a party cannot recover attorney's fees unless such fees are expressly provided for by statute." See also Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986), where we discussed the American rule concerning attorney's fees and the "common fund" exception.

1988This line of cases was followed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in White v. Associates Commercial Corp., 20 Ark.App. 140 , 725 S.W.2d 7 (1987), in which the court stated: "Notwithstanding that the parties have contracted for recovery of attorney's fees, the Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently held that a party cannot recover attorney's fees unless such fees are expressly provided for by statute." See also Millsap v. Lane, 288 Ark. 439 , 706 S.W.2d 378 (1986), where we discussed the American rule concerning attorney's fees and the "common fund" exception.

1986Attorney Fee Recovery In arguing that Barbara may not recover her attorney’s fee against him, Harrod cites cases, e.g., Clawson v. Rye, 281 Ark. 8 , 661 S.W.2d 354 (1983), in which we have adopted the familiar “American rule” that a litigant may not recover an attorney fee in a tort action unless it is authorized specifically by statute or rule of court.

1986Attorney Fee Recovery In arguing that Barbara may not recover her attorney’s fee against him, Harrod cites cases, e.g., Clawson v. Rye, 281 Ark. 8 , 661 S.W.2d 354 (1983), in which we have adopted the familiar “American rule” that a litigant may not recover an attorney fee in a tort action unless it is authorized specifically by statute or rule of court.

1986City of Hot Springs v. Creviston, 288 Ark. 286 , 705 S.W.2d 415 (1986); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882).

1986City of Hot Springs v. Creviston, 288 Ark. 286 , 705 S.W.2d 415 (1986); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882).

1957The American rule is Avell stated in Hudson v. Dailey, 156 Cal. 617 , 105 Pac. 748 : “Where two or more persons oavu different tracts of land, underlaid by porous material extending to and communicating with them all, Avhich is saturated with water moving with more or less freedom therein, each has a common and correlative right to the use of this water upon his land, to the full extent of his needs, if the supply is sufficient, and to the extent of a reasonable share thereof, if the supply is so scant that the use by one will affect the supply of the others.” In Restatement of the Law of Tort

1957The American rule is Avell stated in Hudson v. Dailey, 156 Cal. 617 , 105 Pac. 748 : “Where two or more persons oavu different tracts of land, underlaid by porous material extending to and communicating with them all, Avhich is saturated with water moving with more or less freedom therein, each has a common and correlative right to the use of this water upon his land, to the full extent of his needs, if the supply is sufficient, and to the extent of a reasonable share thereof, if the supply is so scant that the use by one will affect the supply of the others.” In Restatement of the Law of Tort

1953Bizzell v. Booker, 16 Ark. 308 .

1953Bizzell v. Booker, 16 Ark. 308 .

1944Particularly we mention the language in Booe v. Vinson: “The American rule is likewise given in Heaton v. Dickson, 153 Mo. App. 312 , 133 S. W. 162 , citing Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716 , and numerous other cases.

1944Particularly we mention the language in Booe v. Vinson: “The American rule is likewise given in Heaton v. Dickson, 153 Mo. App. 312 , 133 S. W. 162 , citing Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716 , and numerous other cases.

1917This court said in the well considered case of Booe v. Vinson, 104 Ark. 439 , that, “Although it is intimated va Honnett v. Williams, 66 Ark. 153 , that such a trust can not be created or exist in this State, the increasing weight of authority in America favors the contrary rule. ’ ’ It may be noted also that the distinguished jurist, in rendering the opinion in Honnett v. Williams, supra, reserved the question for future consideration.

1917This court said in the well considered case of Booe v. Vinson, 104 Ark. 439 , that, “Although it is intimated va Honnett v. Williams, 66 Ark. 153 , that such a trust can not be created or exist in this State, the increasing weight of authority in America favors the contrary rule. ’ ’ It may be noted also that the distinguished jurist, in rendering the opinion in Honnett v. Williams, supra, reserved the question for future consideration.