Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Campbell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Geo. B. Haynie, Judge; 1. It was prejudicial error to refuse instruction No. 4 for plaintiff. The evidence shows that W. S. Campbell was in absolute control of the work of construction and was to get all the profit, but that A. O. Campbell was the contractor and responsible for the obligations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Geo. B. Haynie, Judge; 1. It was prejudicial error to refuse instruction No. 4 for plaintiff. The evidence shows that W. S. Campbell was in absolute control of the work of construction and was to get all the profit, but that A. O. Campbell was the contractor and responsible for the obligations. An agent’s contract for his principal is binding from the time it is made, if the principal clothed the agent with apparent authority and a third person contracts with the agent for the principal on the faith of the apparent authority. 96 Ark. 456; 87 Id. 377; 93 Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is an action instituted by appellant against appellee to recover damages on account of alleged faulty construction of a warehouse for appellant. It is alleged in the complaint that appellee, A. O. Campbell, acting through his agent, W. L. Campbell, en-, tered into a written contract with appellant for the construction of the warehouse and undertook to perform the contract, but that some of the work was so defective that it had to be done over again at a cost to appellant of $750, the amount sued for.
The written contract is exhibited with the complaint, and shows on its face that it was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hogue v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by4 opinions
- Moore v. Ziba Bennitt & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Rutland v. P. H. Ruebel CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Davis v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Moore v. Ziba Bennitt & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921