2.50 HAY VS. THE BANK OF THE STATE. [5 HAY VS. THE BANK OF THE STATE. The State Rank is a corporation In law, and may legally sue in the counties where its branches are situate, and issue writs to any other counties. In an action against two defendants, who sever In pleading, it is irregular and improper, upon demurrer to the plea of one sustained, to adjudge against him all costs in the suit then expended. But such error cannot be regarded, upon a writ of error prosecuted by both defendants jointly. Tins was an action of debt, determined in the Independence Circuit Court, in June, 1842, before the Hon. THOMAS JOHNSON, one of the circuit judges. The Bank of the State sued Hay, Greer, and
ARK.] HAI: vs. THE BANK OF THE STATE. 251 • HoIsm on a bond, and process issued to . Crittenden, where it was served, on Hay and Greer, who .se yered_ in . their_pleadings. Hay ultimately pleaded in abatement the issuanee of but one writ, to Crittenden; and ,.Greer pleaded nil tiel corporation. Demurrer to Hay's plea sustained, and judgment-responded/ ouster, and that plaintiff recover against him "all her costs herein eNpended, up to the pre:-.ent time." Demurrer to Greer's plea sustained, and judgment respondeat ou.ster. Discontinuance as to lifolson; and Hay and Greer saying nothing further, final judgment against them; and judgment for debt and damages with in:erest from judgment, at 10 per cent. Error brought by Hay and Greer jointly. Greer dying, the suit proceeded in the name of Hay alone. The damages in the judgment being too . large by $5, that sum was remitted. ease was argued here by Wm. Byers, for plaintiff in error, and mpstead te: Johnson, contra.. fly the Court, llixao, C. J. Every principle of law involved by proceedings and adjudication of the court below in this case, has expressly ruled by this court against the plaintiff in error in cases .tofore decided. :lie plea in abatement is clearly within the principles expressly ad-• iged by this Court in the case of Tucker et al. vs. The Real Estate Punk, 4 Ark. Rep. 431; and the plea of Greer within that held in-the of Alahony et al. vs. The Bank of the State, 4 Ark. Rep. 620. ',The judgment given against the plaintiff in error, upon , the demurrer \o his plea being sustained, for all of her costs in the suit then ex-. pended, was, in our opinion, irregular and improper, but cannot, upon the present writ of error, be revised, because it is a separate judgment against him, which is not properly before this Court for adjudication on the present writ of error, which is sued out jointly by himself and Greer, and embraceS nothing but the final judgment, and such proceedings in the cause anterior . thereto as affect its validity, which cannot possibly be the case in any view of the subject in respect to lhis judgment for costs. The final judgment is no way dependent
252 [5 upon it, whether it be right or wrong, legal or illegal; and.therefore it is not a matter which can be legally assigned as error in this, case. The defendant in error having remitted in this Court the excess of damages and interest adjudged to her, as she might well do according to the principles asserted and the rule established in the case of Ful-ton, adm. of Holt, vs. Hunt, 3 Ark. Rep. 280, there is no error in the proceedings of the Circuit Court. Judgment, as amended, affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.