Jones v. Pearce
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from, Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. -Johm -K. Bkxnett, Circuit .’Judge. If Pearce had taken the cotton in hand and moved it, the delivery would not have been more complete.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. -Johm -K. Bkxnett, Circuit .’Judge. If Pearce had taken the cotton in hand and moved it, the delivery would not have been more complete. Story’s Sales, 811; 12 Mass., 800; 2 Kent, 501; 1 East, 192; 7 ¿¿.,558; 2 Eng., (7 Ark.,) 197; 14 Ark., 351; Better v. Block, 19 Ark:, 566; Pratt v. Parhnan, 24 Pick., 42. If the appellants did not perform the contract at exactly the time agreed upon, Pearce waived this by accepting the cotton, and by his other acts done after that time, looking to the accepting of it; as, for example, in August, 1863, Pearce was…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Philip R. Jones and the heirs and administrators of Thomas Lockart, deceased, filed their bill, in the Phillips circuit court, against Thomas Pearce, for a specific performance of an agreement to convey a tract of land; to which the defendant filed •an answer, which he made a cross-bill, and in it prayed a foreclosure of the complainants’ equity of redemption in the land, and a sale of the same for the payment of purchase money.
The complainants answei-ed the cross-bill, and replications were filed to the ánswers to the bill and cross-bill.
Upon the hearing, the complainants’ bill was dismissed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ward v. ShawNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Andrew v. DieterichNew York Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by3 opinions
- Priest v. HodgesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Hodges v. NallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Turman Oil Co. v. Sapulpa Refining Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926