Legal Opinion

Jones v. Chism

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 5, 1904PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. Egbridge G. Mitchegg, Judge. A compromise of a disputed claim is binding. 46 Ark. 217; 56 Ark. 43; 45-N. Y. 635; 75 N. Y. 498; 4 N. Y. 594; 6 J. R. 31; 32 N. E. 273; 91 N, Y. 329; 49 Vt. 327; 3 W. Va. 393; Jaggard, Torts, 344; 3 Wall. 132. A party receiving an injury is entitled to but one satisfaction. 8 Cow. m ; 1 Hill, 185; 45 N. Y. 638; 75 N. Y. 495; Coke, Litt. 232; 3 Johns. 175; 24 Ark. 540.

1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.

Chism sued Tom Jones, Bill Jones and E. J. Hickock in Boone Circuit Court for forcibly entering his land and cutting and carrying away timber therefrom. The defendants answered, denying indebtedness for the amount sued for or any other sum above $20, and pleaded an accord and satisfaction between Chism and Tom Jones whereby Chism received $20 in full of all claims and demands as damages against him for cutting timber and agreed to dismiss as to him in this suit, which was then pending against the three of them. Defendants averred that, having received one satisfaction for the damages sued…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Moore v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  2. City of Austin v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
  3. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McFallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  4. Moore v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API