Harris v. Lemley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. There is but one question in this case. Did Lemley, by his uncommunicated intention to abandon, or recede from, his verbal contract, relieve himself from liability, Harris innocently proceeding thereunder and deeding his property? The contract was binding and there was no time limit. The parties were competent, the agreement lawful and performance possible.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. There is but one question in this case. Did Lemley, by his uncommunicated intention to abandon, or recede from, his verbal contract, relieve himself from liability, Harris innocently proceeding thereunder and deeding his property? The contract was binding and there was no time limit. The parties were competent, the agreement lawful and performance possible. It was never discharged by operation of law, nor rescinded by mutual consent of parties. Both parties must agree to rescind. 93 Ark. 447; 26 Id. 309; Elliott on Cont., par. 1857; 6 R.…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant instituted this suit against appellee in the Pope Circuit Court to recover $250 growing out of an alleged contract entered into between them, at a time not fixed in the complaint, to the effect that each had offered adjoining blocks of land to the school board of Russellville for a school site with the understanding between themselves that if appellant’s block was accepted by the school board appellee would pay him $250, and if appellee’s block was accepted, appellant would pay him $250. It was further alleged that appellant’s block was selected; that he deeded the block to the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wallace v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950