Smith v. Weatherford
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Searcy Circuit Court; Brice B. Hudgins, Judge; 1. The court erred in not submitting to the jury the question of a bonus. No instruction was given on this subject. 82 Ark. 499. 2. Defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that plaintiff could not take advantage of the delay in furnishing ties. 3. The instruction regarding the settlement was erroneous.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Searcy Circuit Court; Brice B. Hudgins, Judge; 1. The court erred in not submitting to the jury the question of a bonus. No instruction was given on this subject. 82 Ark. 499. 2. Defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that plaintiff could not take advantage of the delay in furnishing ties. 3. The instruction regarding the settlement was erroneous. It is error to instruct upon an issue not in the case. 69 Ark. 380; 70 Id. 441; 80 Id. 200; 79 Id. 375; 76 Id. 348. 4. The fourteenth instruction is erroneous as to the burden of proof. 74 Ark. 286. 5. It was error to admit…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, L. E. Weatherford, against defendants Smith and others as partners, under the firm name of C. H. Smith Tie & Timber Company, on account for railroad ties and stave bolts and piling manufactured by plaintiff for defendants and alleged to have been delivered to them. The amount of balance alleged to be due on the account is $2,398.34, and on the trial below before a jury the plaintiff recovered $1,800.
It is alleged in the complaint that in July, 1905, the plaintiff was employed by defendants to make ties, stave bolts and piling out of timber which…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Arkansas & Louisiana Railway Co. v. StroudeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Miller v. NuckollsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. TownsendSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- Fordyce v. KeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Decker v. LawsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lucius v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. KimbrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Hammonds, Inc. v. FlandersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- O. C. Robitzsch & Son v. TaliaferroCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922