Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Cox

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1883PublishedCited by 9 opinions

APPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Mitohel, Circuit Judge. 1. There was conflicting evidence as to the time and manner agreed upon for the delivery of the corn, and it was for the jury to determine, not alone from the sale of the mother, but from all the evidence, whether appellee had complied with his contract to deliver the corn, or had been released; and, if not, the corn would still have been a charge upon the mule.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Mitohel, Circuit Judge. 1. There was conflicting evidence as to the time and manner agreed upon for the delivery of the corn, and it was for the jury to determine, not alone from the sale of the mother, but from all the evidence, whether appellee had complied with his contract to deliver the corn, or had been released; and, if not, the corn would still have been a charge upon the mule. (16 Ark., 90; 21 lb., 659.) Whether the sale of the mother prevented the delivery of the corn, was a question of fact for the jury, to be considered with all the…

1Opinion of the CourtEakiN, J.

Replevin for a young mule. Cox had sold the dam to a third party whilst in foal, reserving the property in the foal to be produced, and agreeing to furnish the vendee ten bushels of corn to feed the dam whilst suckling the colt. It was all verbal.

Before parturition the dam passed into the hands of appellant Andrews, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the rights of Cox, who claimed the mule from his vendee, and offered to haul the corn according to agreement. His vendee advised him of the sale of the dam, and that she had passed into the hands of Andrews, and advised him not…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crocker v. . CrockerNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  2. Dows v. GreeneNew York Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pugh v. CampSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
  2. Triumph Electric Co. v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
  3. Starnes v. BoydSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  4. Murray Co. v. SatterfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  5. Rogers v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917

4 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