Batte Bros. v. Battle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The court erred in the exclusion of the testimony of Batte and Hicks as to the market value of merchantable cypress lumber and in the admission of appellee’s evidence as to that issue. Appellants did not purchase mill run lumber but merchantable mill run lumber under the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The court erred in the exclusion of the testimony of Batte and Hicks as to the market value of merchantable cypress lumber and in the admission of appellee’s evidence as to that issue. Appellants did not purchase mill run lumber but merchantable mill run lumber under the contract. Appellants were entitled to prove the market value by sales of the different grades which made up merchantable mill run purchased by appellants. The evidence was competent and material, and its exclusion prejudicial, as the verdict shows. 137 Ark. 592;…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was instituted by Batte Brothers, a copartnership composed of A. W. and C. W. Batte, to recover of J. J. Battle damages on account of an alleged breach of a contract. The jury found for the defendant, and plaintiffs have appealed, and in referring to the parties we shall employ the designations used in the briefs and will refer to appellants as plaintiffs and to appellee as the defendant.
The material portions of the contract are as follows:
“That, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, said party of the first part hereby sells to the parties of the second part all of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arkansas Short Leaf Lumber Co. v. McInturfSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
3Cited by2 opinions
- Joy Rice Milling Company v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. A. B. Jones Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924