Scott v. Jester
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court, except the instructions given to the jury by the court below, against the objection of the defendant, which are as follows ■: “ To entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is necessary for him to prove : 1. That the cotton in question belonged to the plaintiff. 2. That the defendant had it in possession as a warehouseman. 3. That the defendant refused to ship the cotton…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court, except the instructions given to the jury by the court below, against the objection of the defendant, which are as follows ■: “ To entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is necessary for him to prove : 1. That the cotton in question belonged to the plaintiff. 2. That the defendant had it in possession as a warehouseman. 3. That the defendant refused to ship the cotton at such time as the plaintiff, or his agent, required it to be done. 4. That the plaintiff suffered damages by such…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
In the Dallas circuit court, Jester recovered damages against Scott, to the amount of $235 50, on account of the latter’s dereliction of duty as a warehouse man. Scott’s motion for a new1 trial was overruled, and the cause was brought here by appeal on a bill of exceptions to that refusal, containing the motion, the evidence produced, and the instructions given to the jury.
It appears that Jester deposited with Scott, as a warehouse' man, twenty-nine bales of cotton, and took the customary receipt. That, afterwards, in February, 1848, upon receiving from Bark-man $500, as an advance upon this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sanderson v. LambertonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Ten Eyck v. BillNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Wilmarth v. MountfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822