payment claim in Arkansas

1921If it be conceded, as contended by appellee, that the basis upon which the price of the shipments should be determined was in dispute between the parties, the case is ruled by the doctrine announced in Longstreth v. Halter, 122 Ark. 212 , which is as follows: “When a claim is in dispute and the debtor sends to the creditor a check or other remittance which he clearly states is a full payment of the claim, and the creditor accepts the remittance or collects the amount of the check, without objection, this constitutes a good accord and satisfaction.” Bach settlement sheet shows on its face that

1918These cases hold in effect that, “When a claim is in dispute and a debtor sends to his creditor a check or other remittance which he clearly states is a full payment of the claim and the creditor accepts the remittance or collects the amount of the cheek without objection, this constitutes a good accord and satisfaction.” Syllabus Longstreth v. Halter, supra. But the court was not warranted in instructing the jury as a matter of law that the undisputed evidence, in the instant case, constituted a complete accord and satisfaction.

1943Co. v. Smith, 103 Ark. 145 , 147 S. W. 54 , in which case it was said: "Appellant was not in a position to complain of the attempted disposition of any part of appellant’s homestead whether by voluntary conveyance or otherwise, since it was not subject to the payment of its claim or judgment and, as to the homestead, thei'e are xxo debts or creditors.” The record in this, axxd in the former, appeal, discloses that this is basically an attempt to sell a homestead in satisfactioxi of a judgmexit rexxdered upoix a debt exxtered iixto by contract.

1943Co. v. Smith, 103 Ark. 145 , 147 S. W. 54 , in which case it was said: "Appellant was not in a position to complain of the attempted disposition of any part of appellant’s homestead whether by voluntary conveyance or otherwise, since it was not subject to the payment of its claim or judgment and, as to the homestead, thei'e are xxo debts or creditors.” The record in this, axxd in the former, appeal, discloses that this is basically an attempt to sell a homestead in satisfactioxi of a judgmexit rexxdered upoix a debt exxtered iixto by contract.

1927Arnold v. Oliver, 152 Ark. 47 , 237 S. W. 425 ; Sims v. Hammons, 152 Ark. 616 , 239 S. W. 19 ; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 120 .

1927Arnold v. Oliver, 152 Ark. 47 , 237 S. W. 425 ; Sims v. Hammons, 152 Ark. 616 , 239 S. W. 19 ; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 120 .

1927Arnold v. Oliver, 152 Ark. 47 , 237 S. W. 425 ; Sims v. Hammons, 152 Ark. 616 , 239 S. W. 19 ; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 120 .

1927Arnold v. Oliver, 152 Ark. 47 , 237 S. W. 425 ; Sims v. Hammons, 152 Ark. 616 , 239 S. W. 19 ; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 120 .

1927Arnold v. Oliver, 152 Ark. 47 , 237 S. W. 425 ; Sims v. Hammons, 152 Ark. 616 , 239 S. W. 19 ; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 120 .

1922That such a tax is constitutional, see Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66 , and cases cited.

1918Counsel for appellants say that the matter is practically settled in the case of Fred v. Asbury, 105 Ark. 494 , where we said: “The statute of nonclaim does not refer to claims of title or for the recovery of property for the reason that claims of such a character can not in any just sense be said to be claims against the estate of the deceased.

1912In Hopkins v. Ensign, 122 N. Y. 144 , 25 N. E. 306 , the court reviewing many of the older cases in which a stricter doctrine was announced, said: “The court will now look to the intention of the parties; and if they be fair and honest and the primary purpose be not to suppress competition, but to protect their own rights, and there be no fraudulent purpose to defraud others interested in the result of the sale, the agreement may be upheld.

1912In Hopkins v. Ensign, 122 N. Y. 144 , 25 N. E. 306 , the court reviewing many of the older cases in which a stricter doctrine was announced, said: “The court will now look to the intention of the parties; and if they be fair and honest and the primary purpose be not to suppress competition, but to protect their own rights, and there be no fraudulent purpose to defraud others interested in the result of the sale, the agreement may be upheld.

1912Hinkle v. Broad-water, 73 Ark. 489 ; Ferguson v. Little Rock Trust Co., 99 Ark. 45 .

1912Hinkle v. Broad-water, 73 Ark. 489 ; Ferguson v. Little Rock Trust Co., 99 Ark. 45 .

1910Bennett v. Dawson, supra; Turner v. Risor, 54 Ark. 33 .

1910Bennett v. Dawson, supra; Turner v. Risor, 54 Ark. 33 .

1910The case of Moore v. Alexander, 85 Ark. 171 , settles the first proposition adversely to this contention.

1909Summers v. Heard, supra. See also Bates on Partnership, § § 820-822; George on Partnership, pp. 179 to 181.

1909(Tenn.) 112; Davis v. Milburn, 32 Iowa 163 .” In Forbes v. Cooper, 88 Ky. 285 , it is said: “It is certainly unconscientious for an insolvent party to coerce the payment of his claim when he is owing the other party an equal or larger. sum, and thus leave the latter remediless; nor should a non-resident be allowed, under like circumstances, to enforce through the agency of the courts the collection of his debt, and compel the other party to seek a foreign jurisdiction for relief, and then perhaps find the debtor insolvent.

1909(Tenn.) 112; Davis v. Milburn, 32 Iowa 163 .” In Forbes v. Cooper, 88 Ky. 285 , it is said: “It is certainly unconscientious for an insolvent party to coerce the payment of his claim when he is owing the other party an equal or larger. sum, and thus leave the latter remediless; nor should a non-resident be allowed, under like circumstances, to enforce through the agency of the courts the collection of his debt, and compel the other party to seek a foreign jurisdiction for relief, and then perhaps find the debtor insolvent.