enforcement claim in Arkansas

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1971Stricklin v. Mitchell, 234 Ark. 31 , 350 S. W. 2d 319 ; Seawood v. Ozan Lumber Co., 221 Ark. 196 , 252 S. W. 2d 829 ; Mortensen v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 1 , 188 S. W. 2d 749 ; Cullins v. Webb, supra; Walker v. Norton, 199 Ark. 593 , 135 S. W. 2d 315 .

1946Reeves v. City of Hot Springs, 103 Ark. 430 , 147 S. W. 445 ; Love v. Cowger, 130 Ark. 445 , 197 S. W. 853 .” Appellee, by timely motion,’ called attention to the deficiency in appellants’ abstract, and asked that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed under rule 12 of this court, which provides: “If abstract and brief have not been filed by the appellant in accordance with Rules 9 and 10, when the case is called for trial, the appellee may have the appeal dismissed or the judgment affirmed ’as of course. ’ ’ This cause has been regularly reached for submission, and the deficiency in the

1946Reeves v. City of Hot Springs, 103 Ark. 430 , 147 S. W. 445 ; Love v. Cowger, 130 Ark. 445 , 197 S. W. 853 .” Appellee, by timely motion,’ called attention to the deficiency in appellants’ abstract, and asked that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed under rule 12 of this court, which provides: “If abstract and brief have not been filed by the appellant in accordance with Rules 9 and 10, when the case is called for trial, the appellee may have the appeal dismissed or the judgment affirmed ’as of course. ’ ’ This cause has been regularly reached for submission, and the deficiency in the

1946Reeves v. City of Hot Springs, 103 Ark. 430 , 147 S. W. 445 ; Love v. Cowger, 130 Ark. 445 , 197 S. W. 853 .” Appellee, by timely motion,’ called attention to the deficiency in appellants’ abstract, and asked that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed under rule 12 of this court, which provides: “If abstract and brief have not been filed by the appellant in accordance with Rules 9 and 10, when the case is called for trial, the appellee may have the appeal dismissed or the judgment affirmed ’as of course. ’ ’ This cause has been regularly reached for submission, and the deficiency in the

1946Reeves v. City of Hot Springs, 103 Ark. 430 , 147 S. W. 445 ; Love v. Cowger, 130 Ark. 445 , 197 S. W. 853 .” Appellee, by timely motion,’ called attention to the deficiency in appellants’ abstract, and asked that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed under rule 12 of this court, which provides: “If abstract and brief have not been filed by the appellant in accordance with Rules 9 and 10, when the case is called for trial, the appellee may have the appeal dismissed or the judgment affirmed ’as of course. ’ ’ This cause has been regularly reached for submission, and the deficiency in the

1953In discussing the operation and effect of the statute in Baum v. Yarberry, 212 Ark. 471 , 206 S. W. 2d 190 , we said: ‘ ‘ That the period of limitation fixed by this statute is a comparatively short one, and that an enforcement of the rule provided in this statute may, in some cases, work a great hardship or apparent injustice are matters addressing themselves to the legislative branch of government.” Appellant also argues that the statute is inapplicable because the appellees did not pay taxes on the land until 1950.

1953In discussing the operation and effect of the statute in Baum v. Yarberry, 212 Ark. 471 , 206 S. W. 2d 190 , we said: ‘ ‘ That the period of limitation fixed by this statute is a comparatively short one, and that an enforcement of the rule provided in this statute may, in some cases, work a great hardship or apparent injustice are matters addressing themselves to the legislative branch of government.” Appellant also argues that the statute is inapplicable because the appellees did not pay taxes on the land until 1950.

1952The 1948 Act reads: “In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation, the following prima facie presumptions shall exist: . . . (4) That the injury did not result from intoxication of the injured employee while on duty. . . . ” In the case of Elm Springs Canning Co. v. Sullins, 207 Ark. 257 , 180 S. W. 2d 113 , in considering this matter of intoxication in the light of the presumption against it we said: “As indicated, § 24 of the Act makes a prima facie presumption against the injury resulting from intoxication.

1952The 1948 Act reads: “In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation, the following prima facie presumptions shall exist: . . . (4) That the injury did not result from intoxication of the injured employee while on duty. . . . ” In the case of Elm Springs Canning Co. v. Sullins, 207 Ark. 257 , 180 S. W. 2d 113 , in considering this matter of intoxication in the light of the presumption against it we said: “As indicated, § 24 of the Act makes a prima facie presumption against the injury resulting from intoxication.

1936Mikel v. State, 182 Ark. 924 , 33 S. W. (2d) 397 .

1922In Jackson v. Phillips, supra, the Massachusetts court stated the scope of the enforcement of this doctrine in the following language: “It is accordingly well settled by decisions of the highest authority, that when a gift is made to trustees for a charitable purpose, the general nature of which is pointed out, and which is lawful and valid at the time of the death of the testator, and no intention is expressed to limit it to a particular institution or mode of application, and afterwards, either by change of circumstances the scheme of the testator become impracticable, or by change of law be

1922In Jackson v. Phillips, supra, the Massachusetts court stated the scope of the enforcement of this doctrine in the following language: “It is accordingly well settled by decisions of the highest authority, that when a gift is made to trustees for a charitable purpose, the general nature of which is pointed out, and which is lawful and valid at the time of the death of the testator, and no intention is expressed to limit it to a particular institution or mode of application, and afterwards, either by change of circumstances the scheme of the testator become impracticable, or by change of law be

1918Brooks v. International Shoe Co., supra. But in testing the sufficiency of the account so far as concerns the preservation of the lien, we hold that it is not essential that the account filed be an itemized one. (2-3) The affidavit to the claim was made before and was certified by a notary public in the State of Oklahoma, and it is contended that the affidavit was void because it appears on its face that the notary is a woman.

1918Com. v. Jacobson, 197 U. S. 11 , 49 L.

1918Com. v. Jacobson, 197 U. S. 11 , 49 L.

1918It is a rule of long standing and has been rigidly enforced by this court, as will be seen by reference to the following cases, covering a long period of time: Neal v. Brandon, 74 Ark. 320 ; Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571 ; Merritt v. Wallace, 76 Ark. 217 ; Beavers v. Security Mutual Ins.

1918It is a rule of long standing and has been rigidly enforced by this court, as will be seen by reference to the following cases, covering a long period of time: Neal v. Brandon, 74 Ark. 320 ; Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571 ; Merritt v. Wallace, 76 Ark. 217 ; Beavers v. Security Mutual Ins.

1918It is a rule of long standing and has been rigidly enforced by this court, as will be seen by reference to the following cases, covering a long period of time: Neal v. Brandon, 74 Ark. 320 ; Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571 ; Merritt v. Wallace, 76 Ark. 217 ; Beavers v. Security Mutual Ins.

1916As said by Judge Cockrill in State v. Wood, supra, the reasón is stronger for the enforcement of the rule since the adoption of the Code, for an action in such cases might be prosecuted by the State, as a trustee of an express trust, or by the real party, in interest — that is, by the person entitled to receive the money, who in this instance, is the material-man.

1916See also Huffman v. Koppelkom, 8 Neb. 347 , 1 N. W. 243 ; Crook Co. v. Bushnell, 13 Pac. 886 . (5) Again it is contended by counsel for the defendants that the sureties on the bond are not liable for material that did not go into the construction of the building.

1914The State, to sustain its contention, relies upon the case of Shayne v. Evening Post Publishing Co., 168 N. Y. 70 , an opinion of the New York Court of Appeals rendered by Judge Parker.

1909Hartman v. Franks, 36 Ark. 501 ; Caldwell v. Meshew, 44 Ark. 564 ; Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62 ; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485 ; 4 Cyc. 97. 2.

1909Hartman v. Franks, 36 Ark. 501 ; Caldwell v. Meshew, 44 Ark. 564 ; Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62 ; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485 ; 4 Cyc. 97. 2.

1909Hartman v. Franks, 36 Ark. 501 ; Caldwell v. Meshew, 44 Ark. 564 ; Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62 ; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485 ; 4 Cyc. 97. 2.

1909Hartman v. Franks, 36 Ark. 501 ; Caldwell v. Meshew, 44 Ark. 564 ; Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62 ; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485 ; 4 Cyc. 97. 2.