long established rule in Arkansas

1994We adopted the rule announced in Nowell v. Dawn-Leavitt Agency, Inc., 127 Ariz. 48 , 617 P.2d 1164 (1980), to the effect that an insurance agent has no duty to advise the prospective insured, and we subscribed to the tendency of courts generally to “adhere to the long established rule placing a responsibility on the insured to ‘educate himself concerning matters of insurance coverage.’ ” See also Bruner v. League General Ins.

1994We adopted the rule announced in Nowell v. Dawn-Leavitt Agency, Inc., 127 Ariz. 48 , 617 P.2d 1164 (1980), to the effect that an insurance agent has no duty to advise the prospective insured, and we subscribed to the tendency of courts generally to “adhere to the long established rule placing a responsibility on the insured to ‘educate himself concerning matters of insurance coverage.’ ” See also Bruner v. League General Ins.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955The rule is laid down in Casteel v. State, 205 Ark. 82 , 167 S. W. 2d 634 , as follows: “This Court in the recent case of Fleeman and Williams v. State, 204 Ark. 772 , 165 S. W. 2d 62 , with reference to this section of the Statute, reiterates the long established rule in this language: ‘The rule in this State is that the corroborating evidence need only tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and not that such evidence of itself be sufficient, and where there is substantial corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense, its sufficiency is a

1955The rule is laid down in Casteel v. State, 205 Ark. 82 , 167 S. W. 2d 634 , as follows: “This Court in the recent case of Fleeman and Williams v. State, 204 Ark. 772 , 165 S. W. 2d 62 , with reference to this section of the Statute, reiterates the long established rule in this language: ‘The rule in this State is that the corroborating evidence need only tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and not that such evidence of itself be sufficient, and where there is substantial corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense, its sufficiency is a

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1955Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530 , 258 S. W. 995 ; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648 , 102 S. W. 2d 82 ; Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900 , 136 S. W. 2d 673 ; McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936 , 154 S. W. 2d 810 .’ See also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938 , 9 S. W. 2d 583 .” The appellant’s objection to the Court’s instructions to the jury with reference to suspended sentence is based upon the following statements: “BY THE COURT: You want to know if you have authority to recommend a suspended sentence; I will answer that, members of the jury, this way: You certainly have the authority.

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1945Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1945Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1945Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1945Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1946Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 ; Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. W. 86 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 115 Ark. 32 , 170 S. W. 486 ; Welborn v. Welborn, 189 Ark. 1063 , 76 S. W. 2d 98 .” Here the effect of testimony introduced by appellant other than her own is that appellant was alone a few times when she was ill after appellee went to Texas in search of work, with appellant’s consent. " There was also testimony that appellant had difficulty in controlling appellee’s two children and that they did not show her the prop

1945Hershy v. Berman, 45 Ark. 309 ; Carpenter v. Ellenbrook, 58 Ark. 134 , 23 S. W. 792 ; Beecher v. Beecher, 83 Ark. 424 , 104 S. W. 156 ; Murphy v. Citizens Bank, 84 Ark. 100 , 104 S. W. 187, 934 ; East v. Key, 84 Ark. 429 , 106 S. W. 201 ; Brown v. Nelms, 86 Ark. 368 , 112 S. W. 373 ; Rowe v. Allison, 87 Ark. 206 , 112 S. W. 395 ; Bloomer v. Cone, 92 Ark. 622 , 124 S. W. 254 ; Bradley Lumber Co. v. Hamilton, 109 Ark. 1 , 159 S. W. 35 ; Tedford v. Click, 114 Ark. 167 , 169 S. W. 769 ; Avera v. Reynolds, 203 Ark. 1060 , 160 S. W. 2d 48 ; Bolin v. Kelley, 205 Ark. 539 , 169 S. W. 2d 865 .

1945Hershy v. Berman, 45 Ark. 309 ; Carpenter v. Ellenbrook, 58 Ark. 134 , 23 S. W. 792 ; Beecher v. Beecher, 83 Ark. 424 , 104 S. W. 156 ; Murphy v. Citizens Bank, 84 Ark. 100 , 104 S. W. 187, 934 ; East v. Key, 84 Ark. 429 , 106 S. W. 201 ; Brown v. Nelms, 86 Ark. 368 , 112 S. W. 373 ; Rowe v. Allison, 87 Ark. 206 , 112 S. W. 395 ; Bloomer v. Cone, 92 Ark. 622 , 124 S. W. 254 ; Bradley Lumber Co. v. Hamilton, 109 Ark. 1 , 159 S. W. 35 ; Tedford v. Click, 114 Ark. 167 , 169 S. W. 769 ; Avera v. Reynolds, 203 Ark. 1060 , 160 S. W. 2d 48 ; Bolin v. Kelley, 205 Ark. 539 , 169 S. W. 2d 865 .

1994Co., 416 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. App. 1987).

1993Co., 245 Ark. 145 , 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), and Eiermann v. Beck, 221 Ark. 138 , 252 S.W.2d 388 (1952), as well as other authorities, the appellant says that the appellees’ suit in federal court originally included allegations sufficient to involve all security for the mortgage, but appellees dismissed Coleman’s interest in the collateral from that suit and brought suit in state court for possession of that portion of the collateral.

1993Co., 245 Ark. 145 , 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), and Eiermann v. Beck, 221 Ark. 138 , 252 S.W.2d 388 (1952), as well as other authorities, the appellant says that the appellees’ suit in federal court originally included allegations sufficient to involve all security for the mortgage, but appellees dismissed Coleman’s interest in the collateral from that suit and brought suit in state court for possession of that portion of the collateral.

1993Co., 245 Ark. 145 , 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), and Eiermann v. Beck, 221 Ark. 138 , 252 S.W.2d 388 (1952), as well as other authorities, the appellant says that the appellees’ suit in federal court originally included allegations sufficient to involve all security for the mortgage, but appellees dismissed Coleman’s interest in the collateral from that suit and brought suit in state court for possession of that portion of the collateral.

1981In its argument, the Bank recognizes the long established rule of agency enunciated by the court in Hill v. State, 253 Ark. 512 , 487 S.W. 2d 624 (1972), that: ... a corporation, which can act only through its officers and agents, is affected with notice which comes to an officer, agent or employee in the line of his duty and the scope of his powers and authority and that knowledge ... is ordinarily imputed to the corporation.

1981In its argument, the Bank recognizes the long established rule of agency enunciated by the court in Hill v. State, 253 Ark. 512 , 487 S.W. 2d 624 (1972), that: ... a corporation, which can act only through its officers and agents, is affected with notice which comes to an officer, agent or employee in the line of his duty and the scope of his powers and authority and that knowledge ... is ordinarily imputed to the corporation.

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1969Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569 , 293 S. W. 2d 452 (1956); Smock v. Corpier, 226 Ark. 701 , 292 S. W. 2d 260 (1956); Hurley v. Owens, 238 Ark. 874 , 385 S. W. 2d 636 (1965); Routen v. Duyse, 240 Ark. 825 , 402 S. W. 2d 411 (1966); Tucker v. Haskins. 243 Ark. 826 , 422 S. W. 2d 696 (1968).

1961In holding partition proceedings to be void, the Missouri Court, in Throckmorton v. Pence, 121 Mo. 50 , 25 S. W. 843 , not only said that an administrator has no interest in the lands of his intestate which would authorize him to prosecute such a suit, but further referred to a statute which authorized tenants in common to petition for partition and declared that no where in that statute could be found any point for making an administrator either plaintiff or defendant in such a suit.

1961In holding partition proceedings to be void, the Missouri Court, in Throckmorton v. Pence, 121 Mo. 50 , 25 S. W. 843 , not only said that an administrator has no interest in the lands of his intestate which would authorize him to prosecute such a suit, but further referred to a statute which authorized tenants in common to petition for partition and declared that no where in that statute could be found any point for making an administrator either plaintiff or defendant in such a suit.

1961Ashcraft v. State, 208 Ark. 1089 , 189 S. W. 2d 374 .

1961Ashcraft v. State, 208 Ark. 1089 , 189 S. W. 2d 374 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .

1956Dowell v. State, 191 Ark. 311 , 86 S. W. 2d 23 ; Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233 , 161 S. W. 2d 400 ; and Lamb v. State, 218 Ark. 602 , 238 S. W. 2d 99 .