Clark v. Roop
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Johnson Ovromt Oowrt. Hon. ¥h. H. Eeild, Circuit Judge, presiding. The instruction asked by Clark should have been given, because it would seem to be a plain proposition that under a count for work and labor done for one person, evidence is not admissible to show that work was done for another and different person, and, when so admitted, cannot' sustain the count. . The proof is clear that the work done by Hoop was on the mill of Edwards, and, furthermore, was'of no…
Read the full summary
Error to Johnson Ovromt Oowrt. Hon. ¥h. H. Eeild, Circuit Judge, presiding. The instruction asked by Clark should have been given, because it would seem to be a plain proposition that under a count for work and labor done for one person, evidence is not admissible to show that work was done for another and different person, and, when so admitted, cannot' sustain the count. . The proof is clear that the work done by Hoop was on the mill of Edwards, and, furthermore, was'of no value, and a new trial should have been granted on that ground. No exception was taken, as to the refusal of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice ’Walebe
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hoop against Clark, for work and labor done at the instance and*request of Clark for him.
It seems that Clark, the owner of a mill, rented it td^one Edwards. Hie mill was out of repair, and whether, under the contract of rent with Edwards, Clark was to put tbe mill in repair, or keep it in repair, does not appear from tbe evidence. Be tbis as it may, Clark addressed to Boop tbe following note : “ Mr. Boop: I want yon to put in tbe new works in tbe water mill for Mr..Edwards.” There is evidence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Meager v. Linder Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907