Goldsmith v. Lewine
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court. John M. Elliott, Chancellor, If the means of information are accessible to both parties, they will be presumed to have informed themselves.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court. John M. Elliott, Chancellor, If the means of information are accessible to both parties, they will be presumed to have informed themselves. If they have not done so, they must abide the consequences of their own carelessness. 31 Ark. 170; 30 Ark. 686; 26 Ark. 58; 11 Ark. 28. The party alleging fraud must establish it clearly. 63 Ark. 22. Appellee cannot complain until she has returned to appellant the benefits received under the contract. 33 Ark. 431; 25 Ark. 204. There was no proof of duress. 62 Ark. 525; 49 Ark. 72; 18 Ark. 233; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 301; 10…
1Opinion of the Court
Bunn, G. J.
On the 2d day o£ March, 1893, the appellant, Lazarus Lewine, and Jany Lewine, his wife, being indebted to the appellant, L. E. Goldsmith, in the sum of $451.50, executed and delivered to him their promissory note for said sum, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from date until paid, and due and payable on the 1st day of January, 1897. At the same time they executed, acknowledged and delivered to him their mortgage to secure the payment of said note, in which for that purpose they conveyed to him lot three (3) in block six (6), Woodruff’s Addition west to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fort v. BlackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Johnson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
- Dunnington v. KirkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- In re HawksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1913
- In re CarterDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1905
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Harper v. McGooganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.