Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sallee v. Shoptaw

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 8, 1946No. 4-7952Published

1ConcurrenceEd. F. MoFaddiN, Justice

The majority opinion uses this expression: “Irrespective of the technical legal relationship created when Kincade went to the filling station for repairs — whether employer and independent contractor, master and servant, bailor and bailee — the naked fact remains that Shoptaw, acting for bis principal, received the truck for tbe purpose of repairing tbe tube. . . ”

I quote tbe above sentence as tbe reason for tbis con- . curring opinion. It is because I tbink that tbe court should state wbat tbe relationship was between Sallee and Sbop-taw, that is, whether (a) employer and independent…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bolin v. Corliss Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  2. Stroud v. . Transportation Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. Vaughn v. HarpSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
  4. Varas v. Stewart and CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929
  5. Warren v. GeaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API