Bugg v. Wertheimer-Schwartz Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District. Edgar E. Bryant, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Action in replevin to recover a lot of "goods. The facts upon which the action was based are as follows : The firm of C. Tilles & Co. were in the year 1892 carrying on a’mercantile business in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Dave Tilles was business manager, and made the purchases for the firm. In that year he purchased for the firm a lot of boots and shoes from Geo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District. Edgar E. Bryant, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Action in replevin to recover a lot of "goods. The facts upon which the action was based are as follows : The firm of C. Tilles & Co. were in the year 1892 carrying on a’mercantile business in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Dave Tilles was business manager, and made the purchases for the firm. In that year he purchased for the firm a lot of boots and shoes from Geo. Millins, agent of Wertheimer-Schwartz Shoe Company, a corporation doing business in St. Louis, Mo. The contract for the purchase was…
1Opinion of the Court
Riddick, J.,
(after stating the facts.) We are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. The circuit court did not err in refusing to allow the appellant to prove the contents of the statement made by Tilles to Rice, Stix & Co., for the particular items contained in that statement were not relevant to the points in issue. “The most important class of facts which are excluded on the ground of irrelevancy,” says Mr. Taylor in his work on Evidence, “comprises the acts and declarations either of strangers or of one of the parties to the action in his dealings with…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reid, Murdock & Fisher v. CowduroySupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Judd v. WeberSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
- Taylor v. Mississippi MillsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Strayhorn v. GilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861
- Texas & St. Louis Railway Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hart v. MoultonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Dent v. AdkissonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Triplett v. Rugby Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- In re EpsteinDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1901
- Aultman, Miller & Co. v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.