Jarvis v. Pague
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court; George R. Hayme, Judge; STATEMENT OF FACTS. Tbis action was brought by plaintiffs below (appellees bere), B. H. Pague and P. Pague against tbe defendants, one Williams and Grover Jarvis (appellant bere), to recover tbe possession of twenty-seven mules and five borses. Williams was not served and therefore passes out of tbe suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court; George R. Hayme, Judge; STATEMENT OF FACTS. Tbis action was brought by plaintiffs below (appellees bere), B. H. Pague and P. Pague against tbe defendants, one Williams and Grover Jarvis (appellant bere), to recover tbe possession of twenty-seven mules and five borses. Williams was not served and therefore passes out of tbe suit. Tbe appellees alleged that they were tbe owners of tbe animals; that they brought tbe stock from New Mexico to Nevada County, Arkansas, for sale; that one Williams was employed to assist in tbe sale of tbe stock under a contract…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). The court erred in its instructions to the jury.
In Keith v. Herchberg Optical Co., 48 Ark. 138-145 (see, also, Liddell v. Sahline, 55 Ark. 627-29), the court said: “A special agency exists where there is a delegation of authority to do a single act. A general agent is where there is a delegation to do all acts connected with a particular business or employment.”
In the recent case of Brown v. Gone, 130 Ark. 86, the facts were, that one Cone, living at Montrose, Arkansas, sent his agent, John Shaw, to Eudora, Arkansas, to sell a carload of mules for him. Shaw…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Keith v. Herschberg Optical Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Liddell v. SahlineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Jacoway v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Rogers v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Brown v. ConeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by1 opinion
- G. H. Hammond Co. v. Joseph Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921