Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Short

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 26, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is insisted by counsel for the plaintiff that the court erred in giving instruction No. 1 at the request of the defendant. The instruction reads as follows:

“You are instructed that if you find that the plaintiff failed to comply with the contract in that he failed to. pay the defendant for work done under the contract as required by the terms of the contract, then the defendant had the right to treat the contract as null and void, and your verdict will be for the defendant.”

The instruction is erroneous because it gives the defendant the right to recover…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Caldwell v. DunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Arkmo Lumber Co. v. CantrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  2. National Loan & Exchange Bank v. TolbertSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API