Kimbro v. Wells
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court; Jas. C. Knox, Special Judge; . 1. On the former appeal this court approved as correct an instruction to the effect that if the plaintiff purchased of defendant his entire planing ¡mill outfit and lumber on hand, entered into ia written contract as to the entire transaction and thereafter, without any new or additional consideration, the defendant signed the obligation sued on, such obligation was void, and defendant was entitled to a verdict.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court; Jas. C. Knox, Special Judge; . 1. On the former appeal this court approved as correct an instruction to the effect that if the plaintiff purchased of defendant his entire planing ¡mill outfit and lumber on hand, entered into ia written contract as to the entire transaction and thereafter, without any new or additional consideration, the defendant signed the obligation sued on, such obligation was void, and defendant was entitled to a verdict. 112 Ark. 126. This declaration of law is controlling, ¡and the court ought to have directed a verdict if or appellant at…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion on the former appeal is reported in 112 Ark. 126, under the style of Kimbro v. Wells. A brief recapitulation of the issues involved in the former appeal will serve to make plain the issues involved in the present appeal. George Wells and J. S. Kimbro each owned and operated a planing mill and lumber yard in the town of Monticello, Arkansas, and on the 29th day of July, 1908, they entered into a written contract whereby Wells purchased the planing mill and lumber yard of Kimbro. • Attached to the contract, but on a separate piece of paper,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kimbro v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- O. K. Transfer & Storage Co. v. CrabtreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923