Haines v. McGlone
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Faulkner Circuit Court. Hon. E. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. Haines was entitled to all the equities that Puckett was. 6 John. Gh., 403; 49 N. H., 444 ; 33 N. Y. (6 Tiff.), 658. The proof fails to show any agreement on the part of Puckett to sell to McGlone. There was no “meeting of minds” nor “consideration,” two essentials to every contract. The findings of the Chancellor as to matters of fact, will be reversed unless sustained by the evidence.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Faulkner Circuit Court. Hon. E. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. Haines was entitled to all the equities that Puckett was. 6 John. Gh., 403; 49 N. H., 444 ; 33 N. Y. (6 Tiff.), 658. The proof fails to show any agreement on the part of Puckett to sell to McGlone. There was no “meeting of minds” nor “consideration,” two essentials to every contract. The findings of the Chancellor as to matters of fact, will be reversed unless sustained by the evidence. (Ipl Ark., 292; lp2 lb., 21p9; 13 lb., 350; 15 lb., 209; 23 lb., 3Ipl.) The matter was merely talked over, and no perfect agreement ever…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
In the year 1878 McGlone and his son-in-law Puckett bought eighty acres of land for f800, payable one-fourth in cash and the remainder in three equal annual installments. McGlone advanced the money for the cash payment, and the two made their joint promissory notes for the deferred payments. They received a bond conditioned that the legal title should be conveyed to them when the notes were paid, took possession of the land, and built a small house upon it, which was intended for Puckett’s residence. Puckett bought the lumber and hired the carpenters; McGlone furnished the team to haul the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Roberts v. TempletonOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- McCormick v. StonebrakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Rugen v. VaughanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Eckles v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
- Harris v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956