Minkwitz v. Steen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. M. L. Rice, Special Judge. No estoppel on the evidence. Damages excessive. It ■ should have been value of wagon, with interest. 14 Ark., 505 ; 26 Wis., 115; 21 N. J. Law, 165 ; Gantt’s Digest, see. ■ 4718; 31 Art, 286. Argued that the estoppel was well proven by the evi- - dence. Damages not excessive. Gantt’s Digest, sec. 4718; 25 Ark., 387, 388. On estoppel cited Bigelow, p. 473,475; 6 Vesey, 174,182; 7 Granch, 366; 7 Cowen, 148.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
J. P. Steen and Kate A. Steen sued Peter Minkwitz before a justice of the peace in replevin for a spring wagon.
The defendant gave bond and retained possession of the. wagon.
The plaintiff's recovered judgment and the defendant appealed to the circuit court.
The case was tried in the circuit court, by the court without a jury, and it found for the plaintiff's, and that the value of the property was $30, and the damages for its detention, $25.
The defendant asked for a new trial upon the grounds, that the finding of the court was against the evidence, that the damages were excessive, and that he…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Oviatt, Administrator v. GarretsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Dunnington v. Frick Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Plumlee v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Arkansas Amusement Corporation v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.