Case ID: ark_10/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Walker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State Bank vs. Folsom et al.
    Declaration against William Byers — same name in the writ, except that a mark was drawn across the top of “II ” in William — writ quashed for variance. Held, That the objection was extremely technical, and that the writ should not have been quashed. ,,
    
      Writ of Error to Independence Circuit Court.
    
    Debt, by the Bank of the State of Arkansas against Isaac Folsom and William Byers. The Hon. William C. Scott, Judge, quashed the writ for an alleged variance from the declaration, which is fully set out in the opinion of the Court.
    Carroll, for the plaintiff.
    Byers & Patterson, contra.
   Mr. Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The writ in this case was quashed by the Court below for an alleged variance between the names of one of the defendants in the declaration and writ. The declaration is against William Byers, and the writ is against the same person, unless the fact that a mark was drawn across the top of “11” in William, should make that a different name. It is true that the mark across the top of one of the letters is used as one of its signs of distinction, just as a dot is to another letter; but the omission to cr-oss the one or to dot the other would not destroy the identity of either; nor is the misapplication of these signs of distinction sufficient to produce that effect. Other and independent marks of distinction, as well as their ordinary connexion and use, are equally conclusive and important in determining what letter was intended to be used. The objection is extremely technical, and should not be allowed.

The judgment of the Independence Circuit Court is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded.