Cook v. Hawkins
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. Charles E. Mitchel, Judge. The court erred in admitting testimony as to the custom of plasterers in Texarkana. Evidence of a custom or usage is inadmissible to vary or control the legal effect of a written instrument, or contradict its terms. 45 Am. Rep., 51; 16 N. ¥., 392 ; 34 id., 417 ; 44 id., 495 i 51 id., 431 i 54id., 353 5 55 id., 200; Wood’s Pr. Ev., 145-7; 10 Wall., 383; 13 id., 363; Gr. Ev., sec. 295.
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
Evidence of custom to vary contract. Appellee sued appellant for balance due on contract to build a house and for extra labor, and obtained judgment, from which this appeal is taken. Appellant denied liability, and contended that appellee failed to do the work according to contract, whereby he was damaged and offered to recoup. The contract called for good three-coat plastering on the walls and ceiling of the building. The evidence tended to show that the plastering was not three-coat work, but what is called “drawn work,” which was two-coat work. Over the objection of defendant, the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Fitzgerald v. La PorteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Southern Coal Co. v. Searcy Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Muse v. EasthamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919