Smith v. J. M. Taylor & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cross Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; The relation between appellee and appellant was one of trust, and appellee should be held to strict accountabiltiy. There is much lacking in the testimony of appellee, and his statements are not corroborated by the record evidence. Each allegation and contention of appellant is corroborated by facts and circumstances, and the finding of the chancellor is against the preponderance of the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cross Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; The relation between appellee and appellant was one of trust, and appellee should be held to strict accountabiltiy. There is much lacking in the testimony of appellee, and his statements are not corroborated by the record evidence. Each allegation and contention of appellant is corroborated by facts and circumstances, and the finding of the chancellor is against the preponderance of the evidence. In stating the account the court erred in disallowing him (appellant) $400 “and interest on alleged loan in allowing appellee a large sum…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant, a negro farmer, instituted suit against appellee, a supply merchant, for an accounting growing out of transactions between them for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918, and for judgment in the sum of $1,400.
Appellee filed answer, denying any indebtedness on account of transactions between them, and, by way of cross-complaint, alleging that appellant was indebted to his supply store in the sum of $590.60, with interest thereon from October 25, 1918, after giving appellant credit for all amounts paid in cash or cotton; that, to secure advances made to appellant and his hands in 1917 and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Continental Moss-Gordin, Inc. v. BeatonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Tisdale v. AkersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949