just rule in Arkansas

2016COUNSEL FOR THE PEELERS: And for the record, Melissa Peeler was served with the motion to intervene with the petition for guardianship and no objection was filed to that, and she was served back in January, and that proof of service is in the record. 4 Cite as 2016 Ark.

1987Parham v. Pelegrin, 468 F. 2d 719 (8th Cir. 1972).

1972In Gorrell v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 189 Kan. 374 , 369 P. 2d 342 (1962), the court held that it was error for the trial court to permit the active participation of an intervening workmen’s compensation carrier, saying: The applicable statute, G.S. 1959 Supp. 44-504, provides that when the injury for which compensation is payable was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person other than the employer to pay damages, the injured workman shall have the right to take compensation under the act and pursue his remedy by proper action in a court of competent jurisdic

1972In Gorrell v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 189 Kan. 374 , 369 P. 2d 342 (1962), the court held that it was error for the trial court to permit the active participation of an intervening workmen’s compensation carrier, saying: The applicable statute, G.S. 1959 Supp. 44-504, provides that when the injury for which compensation is payable was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person other than the employer to pay damages, the injured workman shall have the right to take compensation under the act and pursue his remedy by proper action in a court of competent jurisdic

1972“In determining the question of liability of the sureties on the sheriff’s bond and of the sureties on the Collector’s bond, the court will apportion in conformity to the rule announced the salary of the sheriff and ex-officio collector, and, if the sheriff and collector be adjudged due the county any excess of fees on the items involved in this proceeding retained by him over the constitutional limit of his salary, the sum due from fees collected as ex-officio collector shall be ascertained and judgment rendered against his several sureties accordingly.’’ In the case of Marshall v. Holland, 1

1915The just rule on the .subject, and the one which we prefer to follow, is that ‘ ‘.a plaintiff who proves the happening of .an accident, and is otherwise entitled to certain presumptions arising therefrom, does not lose the benefit of such presumptions 'because he has alleged what he conceives to be the specific cause of the accident.” Kluska v. Yeomans (Wash.), 103 Pac. 819 . (11) The only other assignment which we deem to be of sufficient importance to call for discussion is that ■which relates to .the testimony of two or three witnesses who were permitted to testify .concerning the moral cha

1878As strongly supporting the doctrine of this case, we would refer to Phillips v. Reitz, 16 Kas. 396 ; and Strohm v. Hayes, 70 Ill. 41 .

1878As strongly supporting the doctrine of this case, we would refer to Phillips v. Reitz, 16 Kas. 396 ; and Strohm v. Hayes, 70 Ill. 41 .