Chicago Building & Manufacturing Co. v. Stoker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; statement by the court. The Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company, on the 27th day of January, 1909, filed its suit in the justice of the peace court of Brinkley Township against J. A. Stoker to enforce the payment of a subscription ;by J. A. 'Stoker to the Brinkley Creamery Association.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; statement by the court. The Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company, on the 27th day of January, 1909, filed its suit in the justice of the peace court of Brinkley Township against J. A. Stoker to enforce the payment of a subscription ;by J. A. 'Stoker to the Brinkley Creamery Association. The amount to which J. A. Stoker had subscribed to the Brinkley Creamery Association was one share, amounting to one hundred dollars, and the suit wa-s to enforce the payment for his stock in the Brinkley Creamery Association. On appeal to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating -the facts). 1. Appellee did not deny the contract sued on, nor did he allege that he had paid his subscription to the capital stock of the Brinkley Creamery Association. His defense, as disclosed by his prayers for instructions, was that the burden was on the appellant to prove that it had complied with its contract, and that it had not been paid by the Brinkley Creamery Association.
Under the contract appellee would owe appellant nothing, even though he had not paid his subscription to the Brinkley Creamery Association, provided the latter had paid appellant the sum…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- First National Bank v. WaddellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Cushing v. CableSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Cutler v. BallouMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Carson v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Knowlton v. HerseySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.