modern rule in Arkansas

2010Our supreme court held that [the court] had “no hesitancy in adopting the modern rule by which an implied warranty may be recognized in the sale of a new house by a seller who is also a builder.” Id. at 1100 , 449 S.W.2d at 926 .

2010Our supreme court held that [the court] had “no hesitancy in adopting the modern rule by which an implied warranty may be recognized in the sale of a new house by a seller who is also a builder.” Id. at 1100 , 449 S.W.2d at 926 .

1980See, Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation & Park District, 55 Cal. App. 3d 560 , 127 Cal. Rptr. 830 (1976); Day v. Armstrong, 362 P. 2d 137 (Wy. 1961).

1980See, Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation & Park District, 55 Cal.App.3d 560 , 127 Cal.Rptr. 830 (1976); Day v. Armstrong, 362 P.2d 137 (Wyo.1961).

1977The traditional rule of lex loci delicti has fallen under much criticism in recent times and quoting from Babcock, supra, we find the following comment: . . . [T]he vested rights doctrine has long since been discredited because it fails to take account of underlying policy considerations in evaluating the significance to be ascribed to the circumstance that an act had a foreign situs in determining the rights and liabilities which arise out of that act.

1954Ed. 645 , 63 S. Ct. 477 , it was held to be the intention of Congress, in enacting the statute, to bring the decisions of all federal courts into line with the modern rule to the effect that it is sufficient to show that an entry made in the regular course of business is contained in a book of regular entries maintained in the establishment without producing the particular person who made the entry or having him identify it.

1950The early case of Crow v. State, 23 Ark. 684 , (1861) recognized the jury’s right to allow interest in a judgment on a sheriff’s bond where the officer had abused a process in his hands.

1950Smith in writing the opinion said that “the modern rule” allowing more latitude than had formerly been permitted was adopted in Kelly v. McDonald, 39 Ark. 387 .

1949Such conduct should be encouraged, to the end that lesser wrongs be remedied instead of being followed by greater ones.” Among cases announcing and following the modern rule as stated in Winner v. Winner, supra, there are the following: Lyman v. Lyman, 90 Conn. 399 , 97 Atl. 312 , L.

1949Such conduct should be encouraged, to the end that lesser wrongs be remedied instead of being followed by greater ones.” Among cases announcing and following the modern rule as stated in Winner v. Winner, supra, there are the following: Lyman v. Lyman, 90 Conn. 399 , 97 Atl. 312 , L.

1943Kaufman & Co. v. Stone, 25 Ark. 336 ; McCrary v. Schenebeck, 191 Ark. 698 , 87 S. S. 2d 572.

1943Kaufman & Co. v. Stone, 25 Ark. 336 ; McCrary v. Schenebeck, 191 Ark. 698 , 87 S. S. 2d 572.

1910In passing upon this question, the Supreme Court of fhe United States in the case of National Bank v. Insurance Company, 104 U. S. 54 , said: “The master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, showed that the modern doctrine of equity, as regards property disposed of by persons in a fiduciary position, is that, whether the disposition of it be rightful or wrongful, the beneficial owner is entitled to the proceeds, whatever be their form, provided only he can identify them * * *; and that there is no difference between investments in the purchase of lands, or chattels, or bonds, or loans, or moneys d

1907Plead. & Prac. 551; Harris v. People, 64 N. Y. 148 ; Johnson v. People, 84 Pac. 819 .