upon principle in Arkansas

1958The summary procedure used by the trial court was also affirmed in Lockett v. tate, 145 Ark. 415 , 224 .

1939How much more important that an information, which takes the place of an indictment, be prepared by one whom the law has clothed with power to prefer the charge; and unless it is filed by an officer having such authority it will be a nullity. ’ ’ Richards v. State, 22 Neb. 145 , 34 N. W. 346 .

1922Co. v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway District, 151 Ark. 47 , that “this power could rightfully be conferred as a part of the general jurisdiction of chancery courts over the enforcement of liens on real estate.” This was upon the principle that the matters related and incident to subject-matters within the jurisdiction of the court are necessarily drawn into the litigation for adjudication.

1917This is upon the principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” German National Bank v. Barham, 57 Ark. 533 ; Wood v. Holland, 53 Ark. 69 ; Wood v. Holland, 57 Ark. 198 ; Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 592 . (5) In all these cases the court recognizes the difference between redeeming from a mortgage and the statutory right of redemption from a sale under the mortgage.

1917This is upon the principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” German National Bank v. Barham, 57 Ark. 533 ; Wood v. Holland, 53 Ark. 69 ; Wood v. Holland, 57 Ark. 198 ; Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 592 . (5) In all these cases the court recognizes the difference between redeeming from a mortgage and the statutory right of redemption from a sale under the mortgage.

1917This is upon the principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” German National Bank v. Barham, 57 Ark. 533 ; Wood v. Holland, 53 Ark. 69 ; Wood v. Holland, 57 Ark. 198 ; Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 592 . (5) In all these cases the court recognizes the difference between redeeming from a mortgage and the statutory right of redemption from a sale under the mortgage.

1915See Trimble v. James, 40 Ark. 407 ; Dyer v. Jacoway, 50 Ark. 217 ; McLeod v. Griffis, 51 Ark. 14 . (6) As to the state of the accounts between the hoard of directors and the engineer, hut little need he said.

1915See Trimble v. James, 40 Ark. 407 ; Dyer v. Jacoway, 50 Ark. 217 ; McLeod v. Griffis, 51 Ark. 14 . (6) As to the state of the accounts between the hoard of directors and the engineer, hut little need he said.

1913Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 ; Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 ; Vaughan v. Bowie, 30 Ark. 278 ; Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1913Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 ; Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 ; Vaughan v. Bowie, 30 Ark. 278 ; Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1913Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 ; Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 ; Vaughan v. Bowie, 30 Ark. 278 ; Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1913Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 ; Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 ; Vaughan v. Bowie, 30 Ark. 278 ; Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1912Co. v. Stratemeier, 32 N. E. 871 , where it is said: “ It may be proper for the jury to be advised of the situation and surroundings of the plaintiff, so far as they may tend to aggravate or lessen the sorrow or disappointment resulting from the wrong complained of, but it is not proper to consider as a substantive element of damages any mental distress arising out of sympathy with the sorrow of others. ” According to the decision in the Griffin case, supra, mental anguish may fairly be contemplated as the natural and proximate result of a failure on the part of the appellant to deliver the te