salutary rule in Arkansas

1942The salutary rule of law is that every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is persumed to be right unless the party aggrieved will make it appear affirmatively that it was erroneous. ’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Hempstead County v. Phillips, 79 Ark. 263 , 95 S. W. 133 , and cases cited. ’ ’ • In the case of London v. McGehee, Trustee, supra, Justice Wood said: “The uniform holding of this court is that where the record shows that the cause was heard upon oral testimony and that testimony has not been brought into the record by the bill of exceptions, this court will presume, on

1918It has been laid down as a salutary rule by this court that “every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right unless the aggrieved party will make it appear affirmatively that it is erroneous. ’’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Young v. Vincent, 94 Ark. 115 ; Clow v. Watson, 124 Ark. 388 .

1942The salutary rule of law is that every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is persumed to be right unless the party aggrieved will make it appear affirmatively that it was erroneous. ’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Hempstead County v. Phillips, 79 Ark. 263 , 95 S. W. 133 , and cases cited. ’ ’ • In the case of London v. McGehee, Trustee, supra, Justice Wood said: “The uniform holding of this court is that where the record shows that the cause was heard upon oral testimony and that testimony has not been brought into the record by the bill of exceptions, this court will presume, on

1942The salutary rule of law is that every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is persumed to be right unless the party aggrieved will make it appear affirmatively that it was erroneous. ’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Hempstead County v. Phillips, 79 Ark. 263 , 95 S. W. 133 , and cases cited. ’ ’ • In the case of London v. McGehee, Trustee, supra, Justice Wood said: “The uniform holding of this court is that where the record shows that the cause was heard upon oral testimony and that testimony has not been brought into the record by the bill of exceptions, this court will presume, on

1926This salutary rule was applied in this court ini the case of Chaffee v. Landers, 46 Ark. 364 , and in earlier cases cited therein.” So here, the notes secured by the two mortgages were not usurious because, if the debt had been paid according to the terms of the loan contract, only ten per cent, interest would have been paid.

1908This salutary rule was applied in this court in the case of Chaffee v. Landers, 46 Ark. 364 , and in earlier cases cited therein.

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds. ...

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds. ...

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1997The court went on to hold: Apart from the directive of the will providing for majority control, the salutary principle of law as enunciated in Dingman v. Boyle, 285 Ill. 144 , 120 N.E. 487 , Coleman v. Connolly, 242 Ill. 574 , 90 N.E. 278 , and Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N.E. 134 , is that co-executors and co-trustees must act as an entity in matters pertaining to the administration of the estate; any other rule would lead to confusion and chaos and create unnecessary charges against estate funds....

1942Railway v. Amos, 54 Ark. 159 , 15 S. W. 362 ; Tucker v. Hawkins, 72 Ark. 21 , 77 S. W. 902 ; K.

1942Railway v. Amos, 54 Ark. 159 , 15 S. W. 362 ; Tucker v. Hawkins, 72 Ark. 21 , 77 S. W. 902 ; K.

1942Railway v. Amos, 54 Ark. 159 , 15 S. W. 362 ; Tucker v. Hawkins, 72 Ark. 21 , 77 S. W. 902 ; K.

1942Railway v. Amos, 54 Ark. 159 , 15 S. W. 362 ; Tucker v. Hawkins, 72 Ark. 21 , 77 S. W. 902 ; K.

1921The doctrine, carried to the extent for which the assured contends in this case, would subvert the salutary rule that the written contract must prevail over previous verbal arrangements, and open the door to all the evils which that rule was intended to prevent.” In the ease of McCoy v. Northwestern Mutual Relief Association, 92 Wis. 577 , Judge Marshall, speaking for the court, said: “After a loss accrues, an insurance company may, by its conduct, waive a forfeiture; or by some act before such a loss it may induce the insured to do or not to do some act contrary to the stipulations of the pol

1918It has been laid down as a salutary rule by this court that “every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right unless the aggrieved party will make it appear affirmatively that it is erroneous. ’’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Young v. Vincent, 94 Ark. 115 ; Clow v. Watson, 124 Ark. 388 .

1918It has been laid down as a salutary rule by this court that “every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right unless the aggrieved party will make it appear affirmatively that it is erroneous. ’’ McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74 ; Young v. Vincent, 94 Ark. 115 ; Clow v. Watson, 124 Ark. 388 .

1915Co., 78 Ark. 198 .

1915The salutary rule of law is that every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is pr esumed to be right unless the party aggrieved will maike it appear .affirmatively that it was erroneous.” In Foohs v. Bilby, 95 Ark. 302 , the court said: ‘ ‘ The motion to vacate the judgment under section 4431, supra, was heard on evidence, and the evidence which the court heard and on which it acted in .setting aside the judgment in question not being brought into the record, we must presume that every fact necessary to sustain the finding and judgment of the .court was proved that could have been pro

1910This is a correct and salutary rule of law, and was recognized in the later case of Scroggin v. Hammett Grocer Co., 66 Ark. 183 .

1908As stated by Judge Riddick in the case of Leonhard v. Blood, 68 Ark. 162 , “our law visits on a lender who contracts for usurious interest, however small, a forfeiture of his entire loan and the interest thereon.

1906Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276 ; Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456 ; Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 .

1906Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276 ; Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456 ; Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 .

1906Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276 ; Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456 ; Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 .

1906Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276 ; Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456 ; Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 .

1906Light Co., 191 U. S. 150 ; Stein v. B.

1895And we agree fully with what is said by a distinguished judge of New York: “If the legislature or the courts undertake to cure defects by forced and unnatural constructions, they inflict a wound upon the constitution which nothing can heal.” Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547, 568 .

1895In coming to this conclusion we have not overlooked the salutary doctrine that “in construing constitutions courts have nothing to do with the argument ab inconvenienti, and should not bend the constitution to suit the law of the hour.” Greencastle Township v. Black, 5 Ind. 557, 565 .