Railway Co. v. Beard
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court. Action by C. E. Beard against the St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. The pleadings and evidence are stated in the opinion. 1. The court erred in its instructions. The purchase of a press and type cannot be considered as an element of damages. There was no contract to purchase same. 2. The instructions asked by appellant state the correct rule as to the measure of damages. 53 Ark. 443 ; 33 id. 545; 5 L. R. A. 493 ; 5 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court. Action by C. E. Beard against the St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. The pleadings and evidence are stated in the opinion. 1. The court erred in its instructions. The purchase of a press and type cannot be considered as an element of damages. There was no contract to purchase same. 2. The instructions asked by appellant state the correct rule as to the measure of damages. 53 Ark. 443 ; 33 id. 545; 5 L. R. A. 493 ; 5 Am. Rep. 177. 3. The verdict is excessive. 1. The rule of damages was correctly stated by the court. 9 Exch. 354; 53 Ark. 434. 2. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBaytee, J.
Appellee sued the appellant on an oral contract made by him with defendant, which is set out in his complaint as follows : “It was orally contracted and agreed by and between plaintiff and defendant as follows: That in consideration plaintiff would furnish the material and print for said defendant its schedule or time table for the running of its trains, that said defendant would pay to plaintiff the sum of ten cents for each copy of said schedule so by defendant printed, and that each issue or edition of said schedule should be three thousand copies, and that said contract should remain in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Spencer Medicine Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Ramsey v. CapshawSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903