Johnson v. Brock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court. Hon. Lest B. GseeN, Circuit Judge. Appellant surely had the right to explain by his contemporaneous and concurrent declarations at the time of the sale alluded to, whether it was a conditional sale, an agreement for a sale in futuro, or a positive transfer of property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court. Hon. Lest B. GseeN, Circuit Judge. Appellant surely had the right to explain by his contemporaneous and concurrent declarations at the time of the sale alluded to, whether it was a conditional sale, an agreement for a sale in futuro, or a positive transfer of property. It was proposed to introduce and prove his declarations as part of the res gestas, as independent facts themselves, showing his intentions, and in that view it could make no difference whether they were made in the presence or absence of defendant. If his declaration, at the time explained…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Fairchild
After Johnson, the plaintiff, had proved that he once owned the horse which he had replevied from the defendant in the suit on trial, and the defendant had proved the plaintiff’s acknowledgment of having sold the horse to Kirk, the plaintiff called a witness and “ proposed to the court to prove to the jury by said witness, as rebutting testimony, the declarations and directions given to the witness by the plaintiff, not in presence of Jno. Kirk, during the pendency of the supposed negotiation for a sale of the horse from plaintiff to said Kirk, connected and contemporaneous therewith, for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mims v. SturdevantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Wallace v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- American Equitable Assurance Co. of New York v. ShowersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938