Brown v. McGehee
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crawford Chancery Court; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The car was worthless. False representations were made and they were material. Appellee knew they were false. Appellants relied on these representations. The rule of caveat emptor does not apply here. The vendor knew the purpose for which the car was purchased and a fraud was committed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crawford Chancery Court; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The car was worthless. False representations were made and they were material. Appellee knew they were false. Appellants relied on these representations. The rule of caveat emptor does not apply here. The vendor knew the purpose for which the car was purchased and a fraud was committed. The false representations were a warranty. 38 Ark. 334; 60 Id. 387; 47 Id. 148. 2. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the finding. -92 Ark. 359; 93 Id. 277; 89 Id. 309; 91 Id. 59, 149; 101 Id. 368; 103 Id. 437; 78 Id. 275; 86 Id. 212;…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellee instituted suit in the Crawford Chancery Court on November 27,1917, against appellants, to recover judgment on a note for $600 and interest, executed by them on May 6, 1916, for the purchase price of an automobile; to foreclose a mortgage given on a lot in the town of Alma, Arkansas, to secure payment of the note; and to enforce a vendor’s lien on the automobile for any balance due after subjecting the lot to the payment of the debt.
Appellants filed answer and cross bill in which they admitted the purchase of the automobile and the execution of the note and mortgage; but set up as a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jarratt v. LangstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Brown v. LeMaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Bank of Monette v. HaleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Stewart v. FlemingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912