soundness rule in Arkansas

1997In Sanders v. State, 326 Ark. 415 , 932 S.W.2d 315 (1996), we began to question the soundness of this rule.

1997In Sanders v. State, 326 Ark. 415 , 932 S.W.2d 315 (1996), we began to question the soundness of this rule.

1973The prayer for relief included a prayer "for her arrearages to date since the defendant stopped paying alimony" in the sum of $2,100 for 1967, and "for all other proper and equitable relief to which she may be entitled." In Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark. 31 , 14 S.W. 458 , we said: "A party is entitled to the relief which the facts shown clearly warrant, whether he has prayed for much or little." In Kelly's Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555 , at page 593, we said: Now, there can be no question of the soundness of the rule that it is only necessary to state the facts in a bill in chancery; and it te

1973The prayer for relief included a prayer “for her arrearages tó date since the defendant stopped paying alimony” in the sum of $2,100 for 1967, and “for all other proper and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.” In Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark. 31 , 14 S.W. 458 , we said: “A party is entided to the relief which the facts shown clearly warrant whether he has prayed for much or little.” In Kelly’s Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555 , at page 595, we said: Now, there can be no question of the soundness of the rule that it is only necessary to state the facts in a bill in chancery; and it tend

1973The prayer for relief included a prayer "for her arrearages to date since the defendant stopped paying alimony" in the sum of $2,100 for 1967, and "for all other proper and equitable relief to which she may be entitled." In Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark. 31 , 14 S.W. 458 , we said: "A party is entitled to the relief which the facts shown clearly warrant, whether he has prayed for much or little." In Kelly's Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555 , at page 593, we said: Now, there can be no question of the soundness of the rule that it is only necessary to state the facts in a bill in chancery; and it te

1973The prayer for relief included a prayer “for her arrearages tó date since the defendant stopped paying alimony” in the sum of $2,100 for 1967, and “for all other proper and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.” In Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark. 31 , 14 S.W. 458 , we said: “A party is entided to the relief which the facts shown clearly warrant whether he has prayed for much or little.” In Kelly’s Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555 , at page 595, we said: Now, there can be no question of the soundness of the rule that it is only necessary to state the facts in a bill in chancery; and it tend

1964In Eubanks v. McDonald, 225 Ark. 470 , 283 S. W. 2d 166 , this court pointed out that to repudiate the rule by judicial decision would result in the invalidation of titles that had been acquired in reliance upon the rule in question.

1964In Eubanks v. McDonald, 225 Ark. 470 , 283 S. W. 2d 166 , this court pointed out that to repudiate the rule by judicial decision would result in the invalidation of titles that had been acquired in reliance upon the rule in question.

1938But where the servant is present and consents to the performance of the act by the assistant in a negligent manner, we think the negligence is that of the servant, and the master is responsible.” Geiss v. Twin City Taxi Cab Co., 120 Minn. 368 , 139 N. W. 611 , 45 L.

1938But where the servant is present and consents to the performance of the act by the assistant in a negligent manner, we think the negligence is that of the servant, and the master is responsible.” Geiss v. Twin City Taxi Cab Co., 120 Minn. 368 , 139 N. W. 611 , 45 L.

1928The soundness of this rule has been conceded as to sales made under a poAver of sale contained in the mortgage as to foreclosure sales in chancery, but the rules, laid dovra by this court in Jones v. Hall, 136 Ark. 348 , 206 S. W. 671 , and other eases, is applicable here.

1928The soundness of this rule has been conceded as to sales made under a poAver of sale contained in the mortgage as to foreclosure sales in chancery, but the rules, laid dovra by this court in Jones v. Hall, 136 Ark. 348 , 206 S. W. 671 , and other eases, is applicable here.

1919I do not question the soundness of the doctrine announced in Heinemann v. Sweatt, supra, but I think the application of the doctrine to the facts in this case clearly erroneous. „ I also think the act should be upheld under the doc trine announced in the case of Snetser v. Gregg, 129 Ark. 542 .

1919I do not question the soundness of the doctrine announced in Heinemann v. Sweatt, supra, but I think the application of the doctrine to the facts in this case clearly erroneous. „ I also think the act should be upheld under the doc trine announced in the case of Snetser v. Gregg, 129 Ark. 542 .

1919We recognized the soundness of the rule in the case of Lismore v. State, 94 Ark. 207 , but held that such proof was, of itself, insufficient to sustain a conviction.

1907This court announced substantially the same principle in the case of State v. Moore, 76 Ark. 197 , where, in discussing the power of the Legislature to determine what are necessary expenses of government, it was said: “The court in the Sloan case ( 66 Ark. 575 ) did not mean to lay down the doctrine, nor do we now, that the power of the Legislature to determine what is a necessary expense of government is arbitrary, bounded by no limitations, and absolutely beyond control by the judicial department.

1907This court announced substantially the same principle in the case of State v. Moore, 76 Ark. 197 , where, in discussing the power of the Legislature to determine what are necessary expenses of government, it was said: “The court in the Sloan case ( 66 Ark. 575 ) did not mean to lay down the doctrine, nor do we now, that the power of the Legislature to determine what is a necessary expense of government is arbitrary, bounded by no limitations, and absolutely beyond control by the judicial department.