Williams v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; Eugene Lank-ford, Judge; 1. The instructions given at request of the defendant are based upon the theory that plaintiff was making an attack on the release signed by him and attempting to overcome the terms of a written contract by parol evidence, which can only be done by showing fraud or mistake. Appellant’s right to bring suit in the form laid and to recover for a breach of the contract is fully sustained by the authorities. 6 Ind.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; Eugene Lank-ford, Judge; 1. The instructions given at request of the defendant are based upon the theory that plaintiff was making an attack on the release signed by him and attempting to overcome the terms of a written contract by parol evidence, which can only be done by showing fraud or mistake. Appellant’s right to bring suit in the form laid and to recover for a breach of the contract is fully sustained by the authorities. 6 Ind. App. 289, 51 Am. St. Rep. 289, and note, p. 300; 49 W. Ya. 494 ; 87 Am. St. Rep. 826; 173 U. S. 1; 35 L. R. A. 512, and note.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The plaintiff, Williams, was an employee of defendant company, and while working in its service received personal injuries on account of which he asserted a claim against the company for recovery of damages.
Negotiations between him and the company’s claim agent were opened up, looking to an adjustment of the claim, and those negotiations resulted in a contract for settlement, which was reduced to writing, and reads as follows:
“Whereas, I, William Williams, of the county of Pulaski, State of Arkansas, was injured, at or near Argenta, Ark., on or about the 4th day of April, 1910, on a line of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. v. DolanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- J. H. Magill Lumber Co. v. Lane-White Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Kramer v. GardnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- White v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Cherokee Construction Co. v. Prairie Creek Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sims v. BestSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Hanna v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Hockaday v. WarmackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Mott v. American Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Harvey v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railway Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.