Seelig v. Phillips County
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. It was error to submit to the jury the issue as to whether or not the contract required the contractors to install the heating, plumbing and electric wiring, and in admitting oral testimony tending to show that this was the intention of the parties, and that this work should be included therein. 125 Ark. 492. This case is conclusive of the issue here.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. It was error to submit to the jury the issue as to whether or not the contract required the contractors to install the heating, plumbing and electric wiring, and in admitting oral testimony tending to show that this was the intention of the parties, and that this work should be included therein. 125 Ark. 492. This case is conclusive of the issue here. The item is really undisputed. 2. The item of $195 for printing warrants is also undisputed and is properly verified. 1. The contract was uncertain and ambiguous and oral testimony was…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellants contend that the court erred in submitting to the jury the issue as to whether or not the contract required the contractors to install the heating, plumbing and electric wiring, and in admitting the oral testimony tending to show that it was the intention of the parties to the contract that this work should be included therein.
The certified copy of what is designated in the -record as the contract consists of -thirteen articles. In the first article, the contractors, for -the consideration of $249,000, to be paid by the county, “agree to supply…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wood v. KelseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Haney v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Jones v. LewisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Barry-Wehmiller Machinery Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Livingston v. PugsleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brown & Hackney v. DaubsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Watson and Smith v. Union CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- Arkansas Amusement Corp. v. KempnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Logan County v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Goodwin v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917