quoted rule in Arkansas

1998Nor was it a situation such as we confronted in Alexander v. Chapman, 289 Ark. 238 , 711 S.W.2d 765 (1986), where it appeared that counsel ran roughshod over the Trial Court’s rulings.

1998Nor was it a situation such as we confronted in Alexander v. Chapman, 289 Ark. 238 , 711 S.W.2d 765 (1986), where it appeared that counsel ran roughshod over the Trial Court’s rulings.

1998The Arkansas court went on to note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Ward, supra, applying the above quoted standard, ruled that, "due to the mayor's interest in maintaining village finances and the high level of revenue from the mayor's court, the `possible temptation' to rule improperly constitutionally prevented the mayor from acting as judge." Baldor Elec. , 44 Ark.

1998The Arkansas court went on to note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Ward, supra, applying the above quoted standard, ruled that, "due to the mayor's interest in maintaining village finances and the high level of revenue from the mayor's court, the `possible temptation' to rule improperly constitutionally prevented the mayor from acting as judge." Baldor Elec. , 44 Ark.

1996In Burnett v. State, supra, this Court quoted the test for whether one has been seized from United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980): We conclude that a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.

1987Henderson v. State, 279 Ark. 435 , 652 S.W.2d 16 (1983).

1987Henderson v. State, 279 Ark. 435 , 652 S.W.2d 16 (1983).

1969In deciding for Hannah, this Court quoted the rule found in Waller v. Dansby, 145 Ark. 306 , 224 S.W. 615 (1920): The general rule is, that whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts in judgment of law to notice, provided the inquiry becomes a duty as in the case of vendor and purchaser, and would lead to the knowledge of the requisite fact, by the exercise of ordinary diligence and understanding.

1969In deciding for Hannah, this Court quoted the rule found in Waller v. Dansby, 145 Ark. 306 , 224 S.W. 615 (1920): The general rule is, that whatever puts a party upon inquiry amounts in judgment of law to notice, provided the inquiry becomes a duty as in the case of vendor and purchaser, and would lead to the knowledge of the requisite fact, by the exercise of ordinary diligence and understanding.

1964In fact, just the opposite is shown, because in sub-paragraph (c) it is expressly provided that the estate ‘ ‘ shall descend . . . according to the laws •of descent and distribution ...” The Madigan opinion was cited in the case of Rufty v. Brantly, 204 Ark. 32 , 161 S. W. 2d 11 , where the language above discussed was quoted in full, and the Court made the following comment: “This is, of course, a mere rule of construction, to be applied only in the circumstances stated, without the application of which the testator’s intention may not be determined.” We do not think it is necessary to resort

1964In fact, just the opposite is shown, because in sub-paragraph (c) it is expressly provided that the estate ‘ ‘ shall descend . . . according to the laws •of descent and distribution ...” The Madigan opinion was cited in the case of Rufty v. Brantly, 204 Ark. 32 , 161 S. W. 2d 11 , where the language above discussed was quoted in full, and the Court made the following comment: “This is, of course, a mere rule of construction, to be applied only in the circumstances stated, without the application of which the testator’s intention may not be determined.” We do not think it is necessary to resort

1963See Bryan v. Thomas, 226 Ark. 646 , 292 S. W. 2d 552 ; Robinson v. Williams, 231 Ark. 166 , 328 S. W. 2d 494 .

1963See Bryan v. Thomas, 226 Ark. 646 , 292 S. W. 2d 552 ; Robinson v. Williams, 231 Ark. 166 , 328 S. W. 2d 494 .

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1963In support of this contention appellants quote from Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Moore, 96 Ark. 206 , 131 S. W. 960 , as follows: “It is error to refuse a specific instruction clearly applying the law to the facts of the case ...

1963In support of this contention appellants quote from Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Moore, 96 Ark. 206 , 131 S. W. 960 , as follows: “It is error to refuse a specific instruction clearly applying the law to the facts of the case ...

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1963R. 86; U. S. Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co., 186 Ark. 485 , 54 S. W. 2d 282 ; Russell v. Brooks, 92 Ark. 509 , 122 S. W. 649 ; Crider v. Simmons, 192 Ark. 1075 , 96 S. W. 2d 471 .” (Emphasis added) The cases cited by the Biddle case in support of the quoted rule are not authority for the rule in its entirety.

1962App., 223 S. W. 2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N. W. 1077 .” After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.

1962App., 223 S. W. 2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N. W. 1077 .” After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.

1962Cortner v. Bennett, 230 Miss. 369 , 92 So.2d 559 ; Autocredit of Fort Worth v. Pritchett, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N.W. 1077 ." After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.I.T. and that it was the Universal C.I.T. that exercised the "forbearance" and did not receive the extra $300.00 for doing so.

1962Cortner v. Bennett, 230 Miss. 369 , 92 So.2d 559 ; Autocredit of Fort Worth v. Pritchett, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N.W. 1077 ." After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.I.T. and that it was the Universal C.I.T. that exercised the "forbearance" and did not receive the extra $300.00 for doing so.

1962App., 223 S. W. 2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N. W. 1077 .” After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.

1962Cortner v. Bennett, 230 Miss. 369 , 92 So.2d 559 ; Autocredit of Fort Worth v. Pritchett, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 951 ; contra, Chambers v. Gilbert, 68 Minn. 183 , 70 N.W. 1077 ." After recognizing the above quotation as a correct rule of law, the Majority Opinion seeks to differentiate the present case from the quoted rule on the theory that the West Memphis Auto Sales transferred this contract to the Universal C.I.T. and that it was the Universal C.I.T. that exercised the "forbearance" and did not receive the extra $300.00 for doing so.

1960R. 790, where the case of Hope v. Dodson, 166 Ark. 236 , 266 S. W. 68 is cited to sustain the above quoted rule.” “Appellants say in their brief: ‘After the construction of the dam, under a "WPA grant, a large swimming pool and large bath house were constructed upon a tract of land which appellee had acquired wholly below the dam; admission fees were charged to swim in the pool, and other charges were made in connection with the use of the bath house, towels, etc.; cold drinks, sandwiches, and such articles, were sold at the bath house and about the swimming pool; a coin-operated music machine

1960R. 790, where the case of Hope v. Dodson, 166 Ark. 236 , 266 S. W. 68 is cited to sustain the above quoted rule.” “Appellants say in their brief: ‘After the construction of the dam, under a "WPA grant, a large swimming pool and large bath house were constructed upon a tract of land which appellee had acquired wholly below the dam; admission fees were charged to swim in the pool, and other charges were made in connection with the use of the bath house, towels, etc.; cold drinks, sandwiches, and such articles, were sold at the bath house and about the swimming pool; a coin-operated music machine

1960Co. v. Cohen, 223 Ark. 621 , 267 S. W. 2d 774 , this Court quoted the rule stated in Coates v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 , concerning repeals by implication: “Repeals by implication are not favored.

1960Co. v. Cohen, 223 Ark. 621 , 267 S. W. 2d 774 , this Court quoted the rule stated in Coates v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149 , concerning repeals by implication: “Repeals by implication are not favored.

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Our cases dealing with this part of the Amendment include Southern Cities Distributing Co. v. Carter, 184 Ark. 4 , 41 S. W. 2d 1085 , 44 S. W. 2d 362 ; cert. denied, 285 U. S. 525 , 52 S. Ct. 393 , 76 L.

1950Our cases dealing with this part of the Amendment include Southern Cities Distributing Co. v. Carter, 184 Ark. 4 , 41 S. W. 2d 1085 , 44 S. W. 2d 362 ; cert. denied, 285 U. S. 525 , 52 S. Ct. 393 , 76 L.

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S. W. 2d 960 ., Jacks v. Culpepper, 183 Ark. 505 , 87 S. W. 2d 94 ; Holbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885 , 50 S. W. 2d 243 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S. W. 2d 340 .

1950Our cases dealing with this part of the Amendment include Southern Cities Distributing Co. v. Carter, 184 Ark. 4 , 41 S. W. 2d 1085 , 44 S. W. 2d 362 ; cert. denied, 285 U. S. 525 , 52 S. Ct. 393 , 76 L.

1950Our cases dealing with this part of the Amendment include Southern Cities Distributing Co. v. Carter, 184 Ark. 4 , 41 S. W. 2d 1085 , 44 S. W. 2d 362 ; cert. denied, 285 U. S. 525 , 52 S. Ct. 393 , 76 L.

1950Our cases dealing with this part of the Amendment include Southern Cities Distributing Co. v. Carter, 184 Ark. 4 , 41 S. W. 2d 1085 , 44 S. W. 2d 362 ; cert. denied, 285 U. S. 525 , 52 S. Ct. 393 , 76 L.

1947In Sloan v. Ayres, supra, we quoted from Peebles v. McDonald, 208 Ark. 834 , 188 S. W. 2d 289 , as follows: “ ‘Where there is a doubt or uncertainty, or a dispute has arisen, as to the true location of a boundary line, the owners of the adjoining lands may, by parol agreement, fix a line that will be binding upon them, although their possession under such agreement may not continue for the full statutory time.’ ” As an abstract proposition,’ the rule of law is as the appellant states; but the appellee offered sufficient evidence to take this case out of the quoted rule.

1947In Sloan v. Ayres, supra, we quoted from Peebles v. McDonald, 208 Ark. 834 , 188 S. W. 2d 289 , as follows: “ ‘Where there is a doubt or uncertainty, or a dispute has arisen, as to the true location of a boundary line, the owners of the adjoining lands may, by parol agreement, fix a line that will be binding upon them, although their possession under such agreement may not continue for the full statutory time.’ ” As an abstract proposition,’ the rule of law is as the appellant states; but the appellee offered sufficient evidence to take this case out of the quoted rule.

1938In the case of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Swilling, 186 Ark. 1149 , 57 S. W. 2d 1029 , also in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Gwilliams, 189 Ark. 1037 , 76 S. W. 2d 65 , this court quoted the rule laid down in § 29 of the chapter.on Pood in 11 R.

1938In the case of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Swilling, 186 Ark. 1149 , 57 S. W. 2d 1029 , also in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Gwilliams, 189 Ark. 1037 , 76 S. W. 2d 65 , this court quoted the rule laid down in § 29 of the chapter.on Pood in 11 R.