National Railways Advertising Co. v. E. L. Bruce Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulli, Judge; 1. The alteration of the contract was immaterial and made no change in the legal operation of the instrument, and the court erred in holding that they were material and vitiated the instrument.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulli, Judge; 1. The alteration of the contract was immaterial and made no change in the legal operation of the instrument, and the court erred in holding that they were material and vitiated the instrument. The alteration must be material. 1 Crawford’s Digest, 99; 115 Ark. 606; 170 S. W. 1011. The words added made no change in the legal operation of the instrument. 2. The contract was not canceled. 188 Fed. 179; 68 S. E. 124; 56 Id. 313. The privilege of cancellation given appellee was a mere option and could only be exercised at the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
On November 1, 1917, appellant and appellee entered into a contract, the parts of which material to the issues now before the court are as follows:
“This contract between National Railways Advertising Company (hereinafter called the company) and E. L. Bruce Company (hereinafter called the advertiser) witnesseth that the advertiser hereby authorizes and directs the National Railways Advertising Company to place his advertisement of flooring and other lumber merchandise (size of card 16x24 inches) in one-fourth cars of the Northwestern ‘L’ South Side ‘L’ for twelve months from November 15, 1917,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Wilkes v. StacySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Ellege v. HendersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Outcault Advertising Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Finn v. CulberhouseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912