Legal Opinion

Muse v. Eastham

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 22, 1919PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Dene 11. Coleman, Judge; . The consideration of a contract is always open to explanation by parol evidence. 26 Ark. 451. The contract provided for inspection at Sedgwick, but where had at destination the custom of the trade was admissible in evidence, and the court erred in ruling out the proof of the custom of the trade. 89 Ark. 591; 106 Id. 410; 85 Id. 568; 81 Id. 560; 69' Id. 318. 1. The abstract of appellant is…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Dene 11. Coleman, Judge; . The consideration of a contract is always open to explanation by parol evidence. 26 Ark. 451. The contract provided for inspection at Sedgwick, but where had at destination the custom of the trade was admissible in evidence, and the court erred in ruling out the proof of the custom of the trade. 89 Ark. 591; 106 Id. 410; 85 Id. 568; 81 Id. 560; 69' Id. 318. 1. The abstract of appellant is insufficient, and the appeal should be dismissed. 2. Appellant asked no instructions, and his objections to those given for…

1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.

Appellee sued appellant on account for the sum of $297. The account grew out of a contract between the parties whereby appellant furnished logs to appellee at the latter’s saw mill for a certain stipulated price, and appellee sold and delivered the lumber output of the mill to appellant at a stipulated price.

According to the testimony adduced by appellee, the lumber was delivered on board of cars at the mill, consigned by bill of lading to appellant, according to appellant’s orders, to its designated consignee. Of this disputed account the sum of $197 was for deductions made for culls at the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  2. Cook v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Peoples Protective Life Insurance Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
  2. Southern Coal Co. v. Searcy Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API