Legal Opinion

Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. Coffman

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 21, 1910PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jwmes S. Steel, Judge; The agency of Campbell could not be established by proof of statements made by him to the effect that he was such agent. 31 Ark. 212; 33 Ark. 251. 1. It is undisputed that the supplies were furnished; that those furnished on the May payroll were sent to DeQueen, and were paid; that Mr. Dierks made no objection to the orders in dispute except that the two mills were “in the hole,” and that amounts of these orders were…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jwmes S. Steel, Judge; The agency of Campbell could not be established by proof of statements made by him to the effect that he was such agent. 31 Ark. 212; 33 Ark. 251. 1. It is undisputed that the supplies were furnished; that those furnished on the May payroll were sent to DeQueen, and were paid; that Mr. Dierks made no objection to the orders in dispute except that the two mills were “in the hole,” and that amounts of these orders were deducted in the settlement between appellant and the hands. There is no better way to interpret a contract than by the…

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

This is an appeal by the Dierks Lumber & Coal Company, a corporation, from a judgment rendered against it in the Howard 'Circuit Court for $281.07 in favor of Coffman Brothers, a partnership, composed of J. H. Coffman, D. D. Coffman and T. J. Coffman. The facts are substantially as follows:

Appellant owned a great quantity of timber situated in the northern part of Howard County. Appellant and one James Graves entered into a written contract whereby the latter agreed to erect a saw mill on the lands of the former, and saw its timber into lumber. The price to be paid for the sawing was fixed by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gold-Mining Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Heyn v. O'HagenMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Coffin v. Planters Cotton Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  2. Daly v. Arkadelphia Milling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. S. H. Kress Co. v. MoscowitzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  4. Gunter v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. Froug, Smulian & Co. v. Outcault Advertising Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1914

1 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