McVeigh v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The contents of the abstracts are to be judged by the terms of the -contract. While there is much in the abstracts that is not indispensable, and would not appear in the ordinary abstract, yet they are what the appellee wanted and contracted for.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The contents of the abstracts are to be judged by the terms of the -contract. While there is much in the abstracts that is not indispensable, and would not appear in the ordinary abstract, yet they are what the appellee wanted and contracted for. The contract is a reasonable one, and appellee should not escape payment for the work done because subsequent events have lessened the need of information so detailed and complete. 2. Appellee is bound by the interpretation placed upon the contract by…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Defendant, Chicago Mill & Lumber Company, owned lands in eastern Arkansas, and employed plaintiff .McVeigh to make abstracts of title. They entered into a written contract concerning the matter, dated February 10, 1903, which writing was prepared by McVeigh in accordance with proposals previously made by him to defendant and accepted by the latter. That portion of the contract which is material to this controversy reads as follows:
“That said party of the first part, in consideration of the payments, and upon the conditions herein expressed, upon his part agrees:
“1. To prepare for said party…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Griffin v. Anderson-Tully Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Carr v. FairSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Greenhaw v. CombsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- United States Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McDonald v. KenneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Holdridge v. McKewenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Mortimore v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Corcoran v. Abstract & Title Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
- Corcoran v. Abstract & Title Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1958