Schaap v. Robinson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. The contract was void as against public policy, as being an agreement not to compete at the sale or stifle bidding. 40 Ark. 251; 111 Id. 158; 53 Id. 351. 2. The court erred in its instructions. A court should not single out facts and emphasize them. 105 Ark. 467; 62 Id. 312; 57 Id. 520; 43 N. Y. 147. STATEMENT OE EACTS.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. The contract was void as against public policy, as being an agreement not to compete at the sale or stifle bidding. 40 Ark. 251; 111 Id. 158; 53 Id. 351. 2. The court erred in its instructions. A court should not single out facts and emphasize them. 105 Ark. 467; 62 Id. 312; 57 Id. 520; 43 N. Y. 147. STATEMENT OE EACTS. C. E. Bobinson sued John Schaap for the sum of $325, which he alleges to be due him as one-half of the profits of the resale of a stock of drugs which he alleges Schaap had bought at a bankruptcy sale for their joint…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that the .testimony of the plaintiff himself shows there was an agreement between the parties not to' compete at the bankruptcy sale and that the object of making the agreement was to avoid competition 'between them. Reliance is placed upon the case of Woodruff v. Berry, 40 Ark. 251, and Nash v. Delinquent Lands, 111 Ark. 158, to sustain this proposition.
In the first mentioned case, the court held that an agreement between several parties that one of them should bid in his own name at a public sale, or the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marie v. . GarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Woodruff v. BerrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Smith v. UllmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Buckner v. ChamblissSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Nash v. Delinquent LandsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914