PAGE .... Cunningham vs. Trappall......... 557 H. Haggerty advs. Toby..... 533 566 Daniel adve. Curtis.... 362 Harbison adv. Henry....... 14 Harding advs. Keeler et al... Harris, Wormly & Co. vs. Redman. 535 Hartsook vs. Sessions... 519 Harvey ads. Reed.... Hawkins vs. Greene. Duncan vs. Bateman.. . 417 Hicks vs. Wyatt.. . 55 77 | Hill vs. Wright, Williams & Co 15 .. 604 Hirsch vs. Patterson...... .. 112 Estes advs. Moore.. 152 Hunter ad vs. Imboden...... 622 gol Imboden vs. Hunter..... .... 622 ... 115 746 Jackson vs. Rutherford...... Johnston et al. advs. Ashby ... 163 212 323 Kelly vs. Union county... 331 350 Kingsworthy vs. Austin.. Kline advs. State..... 258 Lafargue advs. Clayton....... 637 Langley vs. Barkman......... 287 | Langridge vs Cobbs, ex....... 549 61 Lanier advs. Thomas......... 396 Larey advs. McClintock ...! 702 Latta vs. Dodd.............: ....... 633 Logan ads, Scott................. Peay adv. Freeman... Lyle vs. Jackson connty.......... Perkins vs. Clemm.. 221 Petillo vs. Hopson......... 196 Macon et al. advs. Pope et al.... | Phillips vs. Grayson......... Marshall adv. Ingram............ 115 Price advs. Guthrie....... Price advs. Craig.. 325 Mayor & Co. adv. M. O. R. R. R. Co. 300 Mayeon vs. Edington.......... 208 Quarles adv. Watkios............ 179 848 Maxwell vs. Guthrie......... 702 MeCaig adve. Ferguson........... 210 200 Randolph vs. Thomas.......... 69 216 Rawlings ve. Paty.......... 204 MeKay adv. S. B. Violet... 543 Redman adv. Harris, Wormly & Co. 636 663 44 Mis, O. R. R. R. Co. vs. Mayo, &e.. 300 Mitchell advs. Pate ad.... Rhoda adv. State..... 156 Moore vs. Estes................ Moore adv. State..... 550 Roane adv. Woodward.. 322 193 93 651 136 378 Ryburn advs. Reed........ ... 47 166 169 614 Sanders advs. Alexander.......... 630 Sanders vs. Ward............. 241 Sargent adv. Cornish....... 277 641 Scott vs. Logan......... Opon ade. Maban................ 347 Sessions vs. Peay....... Sessions vs. Hartsook........ 619 P. Sball, ad., adv. State.............. 601 Sherrer vs. Bullocks, ad...... 729 235 Simmons, ad. advs. Barkman.. Pankey vs. Webber...... 356 203 656 112 Spence advs. Cossart. 169 Starke adv. Crump.... ... 34 Pesy adv. Sessions...... 39 same adv. Ross. same adv. Pack. 726 ... 198 S 331 ......... V. State vs. Wbite.... 275 Trappall adv Cunningham...... 557 same advs. Cooper............. 278 | Tucker Vs. Bond................. 268 same adv. Omey... 281 | Turnbull vs. Turnbull..... 615 sume ve. Branum.. same vs. Sartain.. U. 541 same vs. Moore.... game vs. Hagood... Union County adv. Kelly.... same vs. Kline...... | Union County vs. Kelly.......... 350 same vs. Shall, ad.... 601 same adve. Hill, ex........ 604 same ady. Biscoe....... 592 game adv. Hogan et al..... 636 Vaughan vs. Matlock.... same vs. Rorie et al.... 726 Veatch ye. Greenwood... 637 State use, &c., adv. Taylor.... 225 same vs. Watts.......... 300 W . same ye. May.... same adv. Crow et al. ...... 684 Walker vs. Towns....... 147 Steamboat Violet vs. McKay, 643 Walker adv. Haralson..... 416 Stew rt adg. Alexander..... 18 | Walworth ye. Miles..... 663 Stillwell, ex. adv. Burke's ad... 294 Ward advs. Gill....... same advs. Stone......... 444 Ward adv. Sanders....... .. 241 Strawn vs. Norris......... 542 118 Strong vs. Whatley......... 761 Watkins vs. Quarles....... .. 179 same ve. same ..... ... 421 Watts adv. State use, &c.. .. 304 Sullivan vs. Deadman.......... 14 Webber adv. Pankey...... 205 Wells adv. Townsend.. T. Whatley adv. Strong....... same vs. same........... Taffe ye. State........ 34 White adv. State.......... Taylor vs. State use, &c...... White advs. Renfro........ Taylor vs. Moore....... 408 Wilder vs. Mayo.......... .. 825 Thomas adv. Randolph. 69 Williams advs. Burr........ Thomas vs. Lanier....... 639 Williams vs. Christian... Thompson vs. Patterson..... 159 Willamowicz adv. Haller... Thompson vs. Gossitt....... 175 | Woodward vs. Roane... 523 Thompson vs. Bertrand....... 731 Woodruff vs. Core.... 341 Toby vs. Haggerty....... 370 | Wood advs. Miller.. 646 Towns, ex. advs. Walker...... 147 | Worthen adv. Beckham... Townsend vs. Wells... 581 | Wright, Williams & Co. adv. Hill.. 630 Trappall adv. Gray........ 510 / Wyatt adv. Hicks........ 55 16 de......... 225 i. 244 .......... 255 ........... 546 LIRRAT CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, At the January Term, 1861. [CONTINUED FROM VOL. XXII.] BARKMAN ET AL. V8. SIMMONS. Where a deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, purports to convey all of the debtor's property, and refers to a schedule as thereto attached, the assignment operates on the articles specified in tho schedule; but if no schedule is annexed, the deed is inoperative. Sach deed of assignment, being limited and controlled by the schedule intended to be attached to it, is a special, not a general, assignment; and as by the schedule alone it can be ascertained what articles were intended to be conveyed for the benefit of the creditors, the failure to attach the schedule, renders the deed insensible, and parol evidence cannot be resorted to, as in case of a general assignment, to render it operative and effective. Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court. Hon. Len B. GREEN, Circuit Judge. Barkman et al. vs. Simmons. [JANUARY Lyon, for the appellant. The Circuit Court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury, the deed of assignment, executed by Lockwood and Phillips, for the benefit of their creditors. The deed was for a fair and meritorious consideration; and divested Lockwood and Phillips of all ownership of the property at the the time the attachment was levied, at the suit of the defendant. It conveyed all their lands within the State, and all their goods and chattelsnecessarily including the clocks, for the conversion of which, the present suit is brought. This was a general assignment of all the debtors' property, and no schedule was, therefore, necessary; the deed, itself, was sufficiently descriptive of the property, and the schedule intended to be annexed, was for the convenience of parties in accounting for the proper disposition of the proceeds of sale. Hatch vs. Smith, 5 Mass. 42; Robins et al. vs. Embry et al., 1 Sm. & Mar. Ch. Rep. 207. No schedule being necessary, the deed being sufficiently comprehensive to pass all of the debtor's property, the omission to attach one did not render the deed inoperative. Emerson vs. Knower, 8 Pick. 63; Duval vs. Raisin, 7 Misso. 449. GALLAGHER, for appellee. The only point in this case is, did the Circuit Court err in rejecting the deed offered as evidence by the plaintiffs below. It is respectfully insisted that the deed was properly rejected, because it was defective in a most essential particular, and therefore inoperative and void. It purported to convey personal property as per schedule annexed; no schedule was annexed; the deed, therefore, was not perfected, and no property could be transferred by it. Driscoll et al. vs. Fiske et al., 21 Pick. 503; Wilks vs. Ferris, 5 John. 335. It being clearly the intention of the parties, as expressed in the deed, that a schedule, descriptive of the articles intended to be conveyed, should be attached to it, the deed itself was inoperative, and nothing whatever passed by it, for |