Elkins v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. On the issue of fraud and misrepresentation, the court found the issues for appellant. Elkins substantially complied with his contract, and if in any particulars he failed, they were waived. Time was not of the essence of the contract. Elkins is now willing and offers to perform his contract and make his offer good. He should be permitted to do so. 36 Atl. 78; 115 N. W. 325. No damage is proven.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. On the issue of fraud and misrepresentation, the court found the issues for appellant. Elkins substantially complied with his contract, and if in any particulars he failed, they were waived. Time was not of the essence of the contract. Elkins is now willing and offers to perform his contract and make his offer good. He should be permitted to do so. 36 Atl. 78; 115 N. W. 325. No damage is proven. The decree should be reversed and appeLlant given a chance to make his offer good by fulfilling his contract. Elkins’s deed is a…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This action involves a controversy between the plaintiff and defendant concerning an exchange of certain lands. The plaintiff, W. W. Johnson, owned a farm in Washington County, Arkansas, containing 204 acres, and defendant, H. D. Elkins, owned a farm in Texas County, Oklahoma, consisting of 520 acres, of which 360 acres were originally school lands sold by the State, and on which the State still held a lien for the sum of about $950. Each of the parties had crops on their respective farms, and also live stock and farming implements, and they entered into a written contract on July 30, 1914,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mays v. BlairSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Evans v. Ozark Orchard Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912