Meier v. Hart
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evcms, Judge; The court erred in taking the case from the jury and in holding that the evidence fails to connect Lockrie and Holcomb with the fraud perpetrated. This class of trading is fraudulent and appellees were liable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evcms, Judge; The court erred in taking the case from the jury and in holding that the evidence fails to connect Lockrie and Holcomb with the fraud perpetrated. This class of trading is fraudulent and appellees were liable. Appellant had the right to rely upon the truthfulness of the representations made by appellees, and did rely upon them, and was injured. 84 S. W. 1048; 55 Ark. 299; 47 Icl. 335. The evidence shows that Lockrie was at the time of the fraud the agent of Allen and Hart, and that Halcomb is now their agent and the two were connected…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This is a suit for damages on account of an alleged fraud practiced upon appellant whereby, according to the allegations of the complaint, he was induced to trade a valuable farm in Oklahoma and buy a worthless one in this State. Appellant testified that the land in this State which he was induced to buy was represented to be worth $20 per acre, when, in fact, it was not worth exceeding $3 per acre, and that the land was represented to be adapted to the growth of cotton, corn, fruits and other agricultural products, when said land was not so adapted; that the appellee Lockrie, as agent for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cooley v. KsirSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Rittenhouse v. BellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wright v. LakeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Cleveland v. BiggersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Brown v. Maryland Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Ogletree v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Booth v. McCordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.