Lafargue v. Markley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Arkansas Circuit Court. John M. Elliott, Judge. 1. The court erred in refusing to allow King to testify whether he had any interest in the suit. Under this ruling King’s testimony went to the jury as from an interested party, and would not have the weight it otherwise would have had. 2. The first instruction for appellee was too broad and misleading, even though it was abstract law.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Arkansas Circuit Court. John M. Elliott, Judge. 1. The court erred in refusing to allow King to testify whether he had any interest in the suit. Under this ruling King’s testimony went to the jury as from an interested party, and would not have the weight it otherwise would have had. 2. The first instruction for appellee was too broad and misleading, even though it was abstract law. It should have been modified so as to leave to the jury to say whether Mrs. Markley made her husband her agent to sell, and whether she had ratified the sale in any way. 3. The fourth is not law.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 7th of November, 1889, David Markley, who was the husband of Minerva Markley, sold a certain horse to Ed Lafargue and executed to him a bill of sale, in which he recited that he had sold the horse to Lafargue, and received for him $150. Beneath the bill of sale was an order to Minerva to deliver the horse to Lafargue, which was signed by the husband. John King presented this order to the wife on Sunday following the sale. The horse was delivered to King on the same day. About two months thereafter this action was brought by the wife against Lafargue for the possession of the horse.
Upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hamlin v. . SearsNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- People ex rel. Gale v. Supervisor of OnondagaMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Citizens' National Bank v. GannonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Martin v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898