Hlass v. Fulford
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; Robert B. Wilson, Special Judge; 1. Plaintiff will not be permitted to sue on one contract, and prove and recover on another and different one. 1 Estee’s Pldg. § 205; 45 Cal. 514; 56 Cal. 262; 35 Mich. 274; 36 Miss. 458; 41 Miss. 256. 2. The court erred in refusing to reduce instructions to writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; Robert B. Wilson, Special Judge; 1. Plaintiff will not be permitted to sue on one contract, and prove and recover on another and different one. 1 Estee’s Pldg. § 205; 45 Cal. 514; 56 Cal. 262; 35 Mich. 274; 36 Miss. 458; 41 Miss. 256. 2. The court erred in refusing to reduce instructions to writing. Art. 7, § 23, Const.; 47 Ark. 407; 51 Ark. 177; 71 Ark. 367; 81 S. W. 382. 4. Plaintiff’s measure of damages was the worth of his labor up to time of breach. 30 Ark. 280.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
G. W. Fulford filed a complaint and brought an action before a justice of the peace against Joe Hlass, and alleged that he entered into a contract with the defendant on the 22d day of March, 1902, and agreed to cultivate thirty-six acres of defendant’s land, and to plant twenty acres thereof in cotton and the remainder in corn, and that defendant should have one-half of the cotton and corn when raised and gathered, the cotton to be delivered at the gin, and the corn at defendant’s crib; and that defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff team and tools needed to cultivate the land and one hand to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Benson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Oakes v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
- Mikel v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. HunnicuttSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937