Smith v. Finley , 52 Ark. 373 ( 1889 )

Per Curiam.

The justice’s record does not show jurisdiction of the person of the defendant Finley unless by inference. The parol testimony which was heard at the trial, and was admissible to show want of jurisdiction (Jones v. Terry, 43 Ark., 230; Visart v. Bush, 46 ib., 153), is conclusive of that fact. The judgment was, therefore, void.

The proof was clear that the contract was usurious. The plaintiff, therefore, took nothing by his purchase at the trustee’s sale.

Affirm.