Collins v. Lightle

Nov 15, 1887
Reporters:
Before:
Cockrill

-■OPINION.

CocKRiLL, C. J.

In view of the principles announced in Fink v. Ehrman Bros., 44 Ark. 310, and Gauss ‍‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‍Sons v. Doyle & Co., 46 Id. 122, we cannot say that the circuit judge who heard the evidence .and tried the issue, was not warranted in sustaining the attachment. The •question was one ‍‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‍of fact, and upon the authority of those cases, the courts conclusion may be easily justified.

There is no evidence in the record to sustain the con-, fention that the plaintiffs in the attachment ‍‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‍induced Ward to execute the mortgage .. . ,,. . ,

Hicks appears clearly and unequivocally as plaintiff; in. the body or the complaint. It isimmaterial that his name,, •does not appear in the ‍‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‍caption. If others, who were supposed to be interested in tbe notes sued on with him, were improperly joined” as plaintiffs, the objection should have been made in proper time in the ‍‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‍trial court.. In no event did it concern the interpleader, Collins. Sannoner v. Jacobson, 47 Ark., 31.

Affirm.