case squarely within rule in Arkansas

1936The finding of fact last referred to brings this case squarely within the doctrine announced by us in Simpson v. Smith Savings Society, 178 Ark. 921 , 12 S. W. (2d) 890 , wherein we had under consideration a series of transactions not materially different from the transactions herein considered, and held first that the several instruments were separate and distinct obligations, and, secondly, when thus viewed and construed did not separately disclose usury.

1936The finding of fact last referred to brings this case squarely within the doctrine announced by us in Simpson v. Smith Savings Society, 178 Ark. 921 , 12 S. W. (2d) 890 , wherein we had under consideration a series of transactions not materially different from the transactions herein considered, and held first that the several instruments were separate and distinct obligations, and, secondly, when thus viewed and construed did not separately disclose usury.

1929This court again said: “The facts bring the case squarely within the rule announced in Perry County Bank v. Rankin, 73 Ark. 589 , 84 S. W. 725 , 86 S. W. 279 , and no verified statement of account under the statute was required.

1929This court again said: “The facts bring the case squarely within the rule announced in Perry County Bank v. Rankin, 73 Ark. 589 , 84 S. W. 725 , 86 S. W. 279 , and no verified statement of account under the statute was required.

1928Bank, 243 U. S. 269 , 37 S. Ct. 282 , where it was held that the alimony obligation of a nonresident husband, served only by publication, though inchoate at the commencement of the divorce suit, may, consistently -with the 'due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, be enforced out of a bank .deposit in a local bank, where, upon the filing of the suit, the court entered a preliminary order enjoining the bank from paying out any part of the deposit, such an order being as effective a seizure as the customary garnishment or taking by trustee process.

1928Bank, 243 U. S. 269 , 37 S. Ct. 282 , where it was held that the alimony obligation of a nonresident husband, served only by publication, though inchoate at the commencement of the divorce suit, may, consistently -with the 'due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, be enforced out of a bank .deposit in a local bank, where, upon the filing of the suit, the court entered a preliminary order enjoining the bank from paying out any part of the deposit, such an order being as effective a seizure as the customary garnishment or taking by trustee process.

1925One of the jurors stated that he would no,t allow any feeling that he had against one of the appellant’s attorneys to influence him in rendering his verdict. ■Such was the effect of the examination of the jurors on their voir dire, and it brings the case squarely within the doctrine announced in Eddy v. State, 165 Ark. 289 .

1923The testimony brings the case squarely within the rule announced in Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Watts, 131 Ark. 562 .

1922No. 30 v. Pine Bluff, 142 Ark. 279 , where it was held that bonds issued by the directors of a rural special school district without authority of a majority of the electors, are void, even in the hands of a bona fide holder for-value.

1922Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 -29, as follows: “Where a promise is made to one upon a sufficient consideration for the benefit of another, the beneficiary may sue the promissor for a breach of his promise.” -As prerequisites of the application of the doctrine, we further said, quoting from the N. Y.

1918This brings the case squarely within the rule of Gomm v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co., 52 Wash. 685 , 101 Pac. 361 , 25 L.

1918This brings the case squarely within the rule of Gomm v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co., 52 Wash. 685 , 101 Pac. 361 , 25 L.

1916This conclusion brings that feature of the case squarely within the rule laid down in Harrington v. Cooper, supra. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the chancellor reached the correct conclusion in the interpretation of the will, and that appellant should be compelled to specifically perform the contract.

1915The facts bring the case squarely within the rule announced in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Compton, 114 Ark. 193 , 169 S. W. 946 .

1915The facts bring the case squarely within the rule announced in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Compton, 114 Ark. 193 , 169 S. W. 946 .

1909As, if B gives credit to C for goods sold and delivered to him on the promise of A to see him paid or to pay him if C should not, in that case it is the immediate debt of C, for which an action would lie against 'him, and the promise of A is a collateral undertaking to pay that debt, he being [liable] only as security.” In the case of Emerson v. Slater, 23 How. 28 , the Supreme Court of the United States said: “Cases in which the guaranty or promise is collateral to the principal contract, but is made at the same time, and becomes an essential ground of the credit given to the principal debtor

1906The facts disclosed in evidence brought this case squarely within this rule as announced in Railway Company v. Hopkins, 54 Ark. 213 ; Railway Company v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418 ; Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Ratteree, 57 Ark. 429 .

1906The facts disclosed in evidence brought this case squarely within this rule as announced in Railway Company v. Hopkins, 54 Ark. 213 ; Railway Company v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418 ; Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Ratteree, 57 Ark. 429 .