TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rogers v. Conway

Rogers v. Conway, 4 Ark. 70 (1842)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1842
Judges
Dickinson
Citations
4 Ark. 70
Headnotes
A party defendant, by agreeing to a continuance, waives any defect which may exist in the service of the original writ, and makes himself a party to the record. Judgment by default against him thereafter is irregular, but cured by our statute.
Summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried in the Circuit Court of Hot Spring county, in August, A. D. 1840, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the Circuit Judges. At the February Term, A. ©. 1840, the case was continued, by consent of parlies; and at the next Term, judgment by default was rendered against Rogers, the defendant, who sued his writ of error. contended that there was no sufficient process or service, to warrant a judgment by default.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dickinson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Dickinson, J. We find none of the objections taken in the Court below tenable. We do not deem it necessary to determine the point, whether the process was sued out in strict conformity with the statute, or not; nor whether the notice was properly served. If there be any defects on these points, which we think questionable, there can be no doubt but that they are fully cured by the parties appearing in the first instance, and, by their consent, agreeing to a continuance. The object of service and notice was, to apprise the party of the nature of the pro-ccedings against him. The fact of his agreeing to the continuance, is evidence of his having made himself a party to the record; and by such appearance, any defect that might exist, as to the service of the writ or notice, was waived. The judgment was entered by default against Rogers, the plaintiff having first continued as to Ford. This judgment is manifestly irregular, but its informality is cured by our statute of amendments. The proper judgment should have been by wihdicAt.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1849–1850: 11853–1854: 11905–1906: 11927–1928: 118492026peak 1849 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thompson v. Wood97 S.W. 36 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1906)
  2. J. C. Engleman, Inc. v. Briscoe291 S.W. 795 (Ark. 1927)
  3. State Bank v. Walker14 Ark. 234 (1853)
  4. Browning v. Roane4 Ark. 354 (1849)

Most recent

  1. J. C. Engleman, Inc. v. Briscoe291 S.W. 795 (Ark. 1927)
  2. Thompson v. Wood97 S.W. 36 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1906)
  3. State Bank v. Walker14 Ark. 234 (1853)
  4. Browning v. Roane4 Ark. 354 (1849)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list