Hendrickson Lumber Co. v. Pretorious
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; I. The interveners are clearly attempting to take advantage of inconsistent remedies.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; I. The interveners are clearly attempting to take advantage of inconsistent remedies. “All actions which proceed upon the theory that the title to property remains in the plaintiff are naturally inconsistent with those which proceed upon the theory that the title has passed to the defendant.” 15 Cyc. 257-8; 49 N. Y. 301; 121 N. Y. 161; 74 S. W. 596; 102 Wis. 436; 211 111. 597; 124 la. 332; 123 Wis. 116; 49 Mich. 53; 97 Wis. 446. Where remedies are not concurrent, and a choice between them is once made, the right to follow the…
1Opinion of the CourtRiddick, J.
W. Pretorious and O. T. Jacques owned certain lands in Lee County, Arkansas. They made a contract with Smith Downing by which they contracted to sell to him and one Shoptaugh the cottonwood timber on this land, the vendors retaining the title to the timber until the purchase price was paid.
Downing then made a contract for the sale of lumber to the Hendrickson Lumber Company, agreeing to deliver the lumber on the banks of the Mississippi River, on which contract the company advanced him money. To fill this contract, Downing cut the timber that he had bought from Pretorious and Jacques and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Neal v. ConeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hollenberg Music Co. v. BarronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. ZearingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917