Hughes v. Watt

This case was before this court at the December term, 1870. 26 Ark., 228. After the mandate was filed in the court below, the appellee replied to the appellant’s answer, that appellant was his tenant and was holding over after the expiration of his lease.

The appellant moved the court to strike out this replication, which the court refused to do, and he excepted. A trial was had by a jury, a verdict and judgment for the appellee.

During the trial it was proved that the appellant recognized the appellee’s title, and verbally agreed to purchase from him, that he failed to complete the purchase,…