Abbott v. Kennedy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The note was plain and unambiguous. A written contract can not be altered, varied or explained away by parol testimony. 4 Ark. 154; 20 Id. 304; 19 Id. 690; '24 Id. 210; 40 Id. 120; 49 Id. 285; 50 U. 393; 73 Id. 431; 131 Ark. 501; 43 Pac. 681; 207 Id. 101; 60 Iowa, 727; 73 Id. 53. ' See 63 Fed. 377. 1. Tbe bill of exceptions does not affirmatively show that it contains all the evidence. 80 Ark.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. The note was plain and unambiguous. A written contract can not be altered, varied or explained away by parol testimony. 4 Ark. 154; 20 Id. 304; 19 Id. 690; '24 Id. 210; 40 Id. 120; 49 Id. 285; 50 U. 393; 73 Id. 431; 131 Ark. 501; 43 Pac. 681; 207 Id. 101; 60 Iowa, 727; 73 Id. 53. ' See 63 Fed. 377. 1. Tbe bill of exceptions does not affirmatively show that it contains all the evidence. 80 Ark. 600; 105 Id. 676; 102 Id. 439; 80 Id. 441; 105 Id. 53; 92 Id. .148; ’ 81 Id. 327. 2. Here both parties requested a…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellee insists that the bill of exceptions does not affirmatively show that it contains all the evidence. The bill of exceptions, after reciting that the cause came on to be heard for trial before a jury, contains the following: “Whereupon the plaintiff in order to maintain the issues upon her part, introduced the following testimony, towit.” Then follows the testimony, then the recital, “plaintiff rests;” after this the recital, “The defendant offers in evidence the following;” then follows the testimony given by the defendant, the last in order being a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Ware v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Graham v. RemmelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Walker v. NollSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Mitchell v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wilkinson v. FeildDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1952
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Dant & Russell, Inc. v. OstlindOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Sweet v. McEwenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Dyer & Co. v. Delight Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.