election doctrine in Arkansas

2000In Spires v. Compton, 310 Ark. 431 , 837 S.W.2d 459 (1992), we reiterated the election rule that applies when the results of an election are challenged after the election: [T]his court has held many times that elections will not be invalidated for alleged wrongs committed unless those wrongs were such to render the result doubtful.

2000In Spires v. Compton, 310 Ark. 431 , 837 S.W.2d 459 (1992), we reiterated the election rule that applies when the results of an election are challenged after the election: [T]his court has held many times that elections will not be invalidated for alleged wrongs committed unless those wrongs were such to render the result doubtful.

1995Smith, 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 ; Thomas Auto Co., Inc. v. Craft, 297 Ark. 492 , 763 S.W.2d 651 (1989).

1995Smith, 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 ; Thomas Auto Co., Inc. v. Craft, 297 Ark. 492 , 763 S.W.2d 651 (1989).

1995Smith, 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 ; Thomas Auto Co., Inc. v. Craft, 297 Ark. 492 , 763 S.W.2d 651 (1989).

1995Smith, 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 ; Thomas Auto Co., Inc. v. Craft, 297 Ark. 492 , 763 S.W.2d 651 (1989).

1987This was decided in Bertig Bros. v. Independent Gin Co., 147 Ark. 581 , 228 S.W. 392 (1921), where it is stated at page 584: Certiorari can not ordinarily be used as a substitute for appeal, but the aggrieved party has the election to test the validity of the judgment on its face, either by appeal or by certiorari; and if he adopts the latter remedy, he can not afterward resort to the former, for it is the duty of an appellate court, if it is found that a judgment is not void, to affirm it, which cuts off any further review by appeal.

1987This was decided in Bertig Bros. v. Independent Gin Co., 147 Ark. 581 , 228 S.W. 392 (1921), where it is stated at page 584: Certiorari can not ordinarily be used as a substitute for appeal, but the aggrieved party has the election to test the validity of the judgment on its face, either by appeal or by certiorari; and if he adopts the latter remedy, he can not afterward resort to the former, for it is the duty of an appellate court, if it is found that a judgment is not void, to affirm it, which cuts off any further review by appeal.

1984United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Edmondson, 187 Ark. 257 , 59 S.W.2d 488 (1933); Gathright v. Gathright, 175 Ark. 1130 , 1 S.W.2d 809 (1928).

1984United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Edmondson, 187 Ark. 257 , 59 S.W.2d 488 (1933); Gathright v. Gathright, 175 Ark. 1130 , 1 S.W.2d 809 (1928).

1984United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Edmondson, 187 Ark. 257 , 59 S.W.2d 488 (1933); Gathright v. Gathright, 175 Ark. 1130 , 1 S.W.2d 809 (1928).

1984United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Edmondson, 187 Ark. 257 , 59 S.W.2d 488 (1933); Gathright v. Gathright, 175 Ark. 1130 , 1 S.W.2d 809 (1928).

1975We pointed out in Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 356 S.W. 2d 736 (1962), that in “Workmen’s Compensation cases there appears to be an even less strict adherence to the election rule than in other cases.” However, we need go no further than the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Ark.

1975We pointed out in Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 356 S.W. 2d 736 (1962), that in “Workmen’s Compensation cases there appears to be an even less strict adherence to the election rule than in other cases.” However, we need go no further than the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Ark.

1962McDonald v. Shaw, 92 Ark. 15 , 121 S. W. 935 , 28 L.R.A.N.S. 657 .

1962McDonald v. Shaw, 92 Ark. 15 , 121 S. W. 935 , 28 L.R.A.N.S. 657 .

1927As this court said, in the case of the Bank of Searcy v. Merchants’ Grocery Company, 123 Ark. 403 , 185 S. W. 806 , ‘ ‘ it involves the doctrine of election because, if the appellee (grocer company) made an election to stand as an unsecured creditor, it cannot afterwards take the inconsistent position of being a secured creditor and assert the right to enforce the security.

1927As this court said, in the case of the Bank of Searcy v. Merchants’ Grocery Company, 123 Ark. 403 , 185 S. W. 806 , ‘ ‘ it involves the doctrine of election because, if the appellee (grocer company) made an election to stand as an unsecured creditor, it cannot afterwards take the inconsistent position of being a secured creditor and assert the right to enforce the security.

1922Co., 110 Pac. 226 .

1922If the writer intended by that to say that the party, when the facts of his case are susceptible of a double construction, cannot, under any circumstances, have it submitted to the jury to draw the proper inference, he confuses the matter with those situations where the doctrine of election, strictly so-called, applies, and the courts cited do not bear out the text, as has been seen.” See also Thompson on Negligence, § 1858; Gorton v. Harmon, 116 N. W. 443 ; Neary v. N. P. R.

1892In the case of Fitzhugh v. Hubbard, 41 Ark. 64 , this court, through Judge Smith, defines election in such cases as this as follows: “An election, in equity, is the choice which a party is compelled to make between the acceptance of a benefit under an instrument and the retention of some property, already his own, which is attempted to be disposed of in favor of a third party, by virtue of the same instrument. ” ‘ ‘A person, who accepts a benefit under an instrument, must adopt the whole instrument, giving full effect to its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” This is

1875Greene v. Morse, 4 Barb., 335 ; Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615 ; Maynard v. Maynard, 4 Edw., ch. 711. “ In the case of a voluntary assignment, where the assignee creates his own trusts, a creditor who comes in to claim a share of the fund under it, must be content to take such share of it as the assignor intended to give him, and cannot claim that which was intended to be given to the assignee in trust for others.