Bartlett v. Yochum
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is earnestly insisted by counsel for the defendant that the court should have directed a verdict in his favor. They point out that Dumm only had authority to enter into written contracts for the purchase of timber for the defendant, and that no contract in writing was ever made by him with Yochum. They insist that the only contract made with Yochum for getting out logs was the answer of Bartlett to the letter written by Landrum for Yochum of the date of August 31, 1920.
It is true that the letter only refers to the shortage on Moore’s barge and asked…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. GraysonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Crossett Lumber Co. v. FowlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Hill v. GibsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- Phillips v. GravesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Oil City Iron Works v. BradleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- A. J. Chestnut Co. v. HargraveSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928