Elkins v. Aliceville
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). Contracts may he made hy letters and telegrams, and, when so evidenced, it is the duty of the trial court to interpret the contract and declare its terms. Mann v. Urquhart, 89 Ark. 239; Cage v. Black, 97 Ark. 613; Porter v. Gossell, 112 Ark. 380; Hart v. Hammett Grocer Co., 132 Ark. 197; and Mantle Lamp Co. v. Read, 160 Ark. 355. The principles of law decided in these eases are recognized as controlling by counsel for the plaintiff, 'but he claims that under the original contract the time for performance expired at the end of sixty days, and that after this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Parmelee v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Mann v. UrquhartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Cook v. CaveSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Cage v. BlackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Ozark & Cherokee Central Railway Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Afflick v. LambertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Bodcaw Oil Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Ferguson v. the C. H. Triplett CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Leonard v. DowningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Dewey Portland Cement Co. v. Benton County Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.