Legal Opinion
Buck v. Monsanto Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided July 2, 1973No. 73-40PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Frank Holt, Justice.
The narrow issue before us on this appeal involves the construction of an indemnity provision of a lease agreement. This is the basis for the judgment rendered against appellant Buck, who operated a service station as a sublessee. Originally the service station was leased from appellee Monsanto by appellee Mathews. Mathews then subleased to Buck. Both lease agreements contained similar indemnity clauses. The pertinent part of the agreement between Mathews and Buck provided:
“Lessee agrees to protect, indemnify and .save lessor harmless from any and all liability for loss,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pickens-Bond Construction Co. v. North Little Rock Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- Equity Mutual Insurance Co. v. Southern Ice Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Fisher v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. LoveSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Trace X Chemical, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
- First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v. Arkansas Development Finance AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1994
- Buck v. Mathews Oil Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
- Trace X Chemical, Inc., a Corporation v. Gulf Oil Chemical Company and Gulf Oil Corporation v. C.I.L., Inc. Canadian Industries, Limited and C.I.L. Ammunition, Inc., Trace X Chemical, Inc., a Corporation v. Gulf Oil Chemical Company and Gulf Oil Corporation v. C.I.L., Inc. Canadian Industries, Limited and C.I.L. Ammunition, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983