Legal Opinion

Quaile & Co. v. William Kelly Milling Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 23, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). At the outset it may be stated that the contract was reduced to writing and signed by the parties. It was contemplated that the written contract should be confirmed at the home office of appellee, and this was done both by telegram and by letter when the contract was received by appellee at its home office. It is true that a member of the firm of appellants testified that it was also intended that appellant should sign the confirmation of the contract, and that this was never done. This evidence was not admissible because it tended to contradict and vary…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kothe v. R. C. Taylor TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Robbins v. PlantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  3. Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston v. Randazzo MacAroni Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1926
  4. Colonial & United States Mortgage Co. v. JeterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
  5. Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. JacobsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rice v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Consolidated Flour Mills Co. v. File Bros. Wholesale Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
  3. Street v. ShullSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  4. Lettellier v. Abilene Flour Mills Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1935
  5. In re LammersDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1962

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API