Brown v. Norred
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clay 'Circuit 'Court, Eastern District; J. F. Gautney, Judge; 1. Norred wias a sub-contractor and was 'bound to perform the work according to the original contract. He was bound to 'know tbe terms iand conditions of the original contract, and it can avail him nothing to say he did not know what the contract was. 37 'Cye. 340; 39 N. W. 742-46; 55 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay 'Circuit 'Court, Eastern District; J. F. Gautney, Judge; 1. Norred wias a sub-contractor and was 'bound to perform the work according to the original contract. He was bound to 'know tbe terms iand conditions of the original contract, and it can avail him nothing to say he did not know what the contract was. 37 'Cye. 340; 39 N. W. 742-46; 55 Mo. App. 107-115. 2. Instruction 2 conflicts with 3 and 4. Where both parties have agreed that a third party must accept and receive the work before it is paid for, his decision fairly ■made it binding. 48 Ark. 522; 68 Id. 155; 79 Id. 506;…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Edward Norred sued W. R. Brown to recover an amount alleged to be due him for clearing fourteen acres of right-of-way of a drainage ditch. He recovered judgment and the defendant has appealed. The facts are as follows:
The ’Central Clay Drainage District was created by th'e Act of the Legislature of 1911,* and the district entered into a contract with the defendant Brown' to construct three ditches, including the cutting of the right-of-way1. Brown entered into a contract with George Holford to clear the right-of-way. Holford entered into a contract with one Petty and others to clear a part of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. BoganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jose-Balz Co. v. DewittIndiana Court of Appeals · 1931