Henslee v. Mobley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Northern District; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; 1. ■ The court erred in holding (1) that retained percentages of a contractor in the hands of a road district are subject to gamisbment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Northern District; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; 1. ■ The court erred in holding (1) that retained percentages of a contractor in the hands of a road district are subject to gamisbment. Road districts' are not subject to garnishment. 90 Ark. 236; 31 Id. 387; 56 Id. 451. 2. Appellant should have had priority in the funds of the district for the reason that the facts in this case are the facts in the Plummer case. 90 Ark. 236. 3. Appellant did not breach the contract. Mobley had no right to refuse to pay Henslee’s estimates. 152 Ill. 59; 30 L. R. A. and note;…
1Opinion
OPINION ON REHEARING.
McCulloch, C. J.
It is contended now that, since we allowed appellee a credit of $201.80 for the additional cost of hauling and spreading rock for the base, we ought also to have allowed him credit for the cost of the rock, for the reason, as it is claimed, that it was necessary to furnish additional rock to supply the shortage of earth in bringing up the grade to the standard provided in the contract. We failed on the original consideration of the case, and fail now, to find any testimony to warrant an allowance for the cost of furnishing additional rock. The conflict in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bayou Meto Drainage District v. ChaplineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Plummer v. School District Number 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Sallee v. Bank of CorningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Hayes-Thomas Grain Co. v. A. F. Wilcox Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920