Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Columbia Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; C. W. Smith, Judge; In construing a contract executed on a printed-form, if there are printed and written words in the contract differing in meaning, the written words will control. Bishop on Contracts, § 413; Lawson on Contracts, § 389; 9 Cyc., § 584; 11 Cent. Dig., tit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; C. W. Smith, Judge; In construing a contract executed on a printed-form, if there are printed and written words in the contract differing in meaning, the written words will control. Bishop on Contracts, § 413; Lawson on Contracts, § 389; 9 Cyc., § 584; 11 Cent. Dig., tit. Contracts, 745; 112 S. W. 332. “Where there are two clauses of a contract in any respect conflicting, ‘that which is specially directed to a particular matter controls in respect thereto.’ ” 72 Ark. 633. See, also, 107 S. W. 282, 283. The erasure appearing in the contract sued on is…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J'.
The Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Company sued the Columbia Cotton Oil Company et al. to recover $2,813.36, which it alleges was the balance due it for 1,250 tons of acid phosphate sold by defendant to the oil company. The material facts are as follows:
The Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Company is a corporation organized in the State of Louisiana. It is located at New Orleans and is engaged in the business of selling fertilizers. The Columbia Cotton Oil Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, engaged in business in Magnolia, Arkansas. On the 30th…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Vogt v. SchienebeckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- American Express Co. v. PinckneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Mann v. UrquhartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Thomas v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Leader Co. v. Little Rock Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Indemnity Company v. HoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Thompson v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Lawless v. Caddo River Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Standard Rice Company, Inc. v. DildaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935