Graff v. Lena Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lawrence iChancery Court; George T. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. Before one can be held liable for services rendered, there must have been at least an implied contract. 128 SW. 1036. In order that an acceptance may be effective after a refusal, the offer must have been renewed. 119 U. S!. 149; Clark on Contracts, 53. 2. Appellants are not estopped.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence iChancery Court; George T. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. Before one can be held liable for services rendered, there must have been at least an implied contract. 128 SW. 1036. In order that an acceptance may be effective after a refusal, the offer must have been renewed. 119 U. S!. 149; Clark on Contracts, 53. 2. Appellants are not estopped. There was no contract, express or implied, no consideration to appellants, which fact was known to appellee, and the appellee was not misled to its injury. 16 Cye. 744 and note 37; 33 Ark. 646. Where all facts are known to both parties,…
1Opinion of the CourtBattue, J.
This suit was brought by the Lena Lumber Company against Graff Brothers and others in the chancery court for the Eastern District of Lawrence County to recover a judgment for the sum of $400 and interest.
Plaintiff’s complaint is as follows: “The Lena Lumber Company states that it is a corporation organized under, and doing business in, the State of Arkansas, and for cause of action against the defendants, J. L- Park, J. N. Beakley, Ben Graff and Fritz Graff, partners, and doing business as Graff Brothers, states that on or about the 18th day of September, 1906, the Walnut Ridge School…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trapnall v. BurtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1866
- Gill v. HardinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baker-McGrew Co. v. Union Seed & Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Keylon v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948