Holdridge v. McKewen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M, Elliott, Chancellor; The master having been appointed by consent of parties, his findings of fact are conclusive, but his conclusions of law are not binding, and, if erroneous, will be set aside. 74 Ark. 336. The conversation in the mule pen at Stuttgart, more than a year after the partnership was entered into, did not amount to a contract, but was a mere conference between the partners as to the advisability of pursuing a course…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M, Elliott, Chancellor; The master having been appointed by consent of parties, his findings of fact are conclusive, but his conclusions of law are not binding, and, if erroneous, will be set aside. 74 Ark. 336. The conversation in the mule pen at Stuttgart, more than a year after the partnership was entered into, did not amount to a contract, but was a mere conference between the partners as to the advisability of pursuing a course which either party could pursue without authority from the other. There was no consideration to support a contract on…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
L. W. Holdridge and C. P. McKewen were partners dealing in live stock. They formed a partnership in the beginning of the year 1907. Holdridge agreed to furnish the money with which to purchase the live stock and to aid in buying and selling he same. McKewan was to purchase and aid in the purchase and sale of stock and care for same while in his control. The expense of feeding and caring for the stock while in McKewen’s possession and of getting them to market was to be borne equally by the partners and the profits were to be divided equally. The partnership continued until sometime in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McVeigh v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Hall v. SannonerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blythe v. CummingsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920