Legal Opinion

Grismore v. Utley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 18, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). The chancellor found that W. L. Brennan, the duly authorized agent of the Crismore-Hyman Company, falsely represented to appellees that the land in question was not in a drainage district, and that this false representation was a material inducement to appellees in making the contract for the purchase of the land.

It is first contended that appellees should be denied relief because they did not examine the records to see whether or not the land purchased by them was in a drainage district. It would be inequitable to say to one who, in good faith, has relied…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gammill v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
  2. Evatt v. HudsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  3. English v. NorthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  4. Bennett v. FaraboughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  5. Grayling Lumber Co. v. EbbittSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Owens v. Union Bank of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1931
  2. Barnett v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API