Wiegel v. Road Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Thomas C. Trimble, Judge; 1. The peremptory instruction given by the court was erroneous. The amount of the counterclaim was stoutly denied by plaintiff. The sole right of the defendant to recover on the counterclaim was based on the plaintiff having forfeited the contract. This was a question of fact for the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Thomas C. Trimble, Judge; 1. The peremptory instruction given by the court was erroneous. The amount of the counterclaim was stoutly denied by plaintiff. The sole right of the defendant to recover on the counterclaim was based on the plaintiff having forfeited the contract. This was a question of fact for the jury. When plaintiff took a non-suit there were two questions remaining, both of which were questions of fact for the jury. First. Was defendant entitled to recover on its counterclaim? Second. If so, what was the amount it should…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant, operating as the Pulaski Stone Company, entered into a contract with the appellee road improvement district whereby he undertook to furnish the rock required by the district in the construction of its roads. The portions of the contract which are material here read as follows:
“1st. That for and in consideration of the sum of 62e., per estimated cubic yard of 2,300 pounds, Western Weighing Association weights, f. o. b. cars Little Rock, Arkansas, said contractor agrees to furnish blue trap rock crushed in sizes one (1), two (2), three (3) and four (4) in such proportion as ordered…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lay v. CollinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by3 opinions
- Norton v. Hutchins, ChancellorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
- Watts v. WattsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Wiegel v. Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920