Coyne Bros. v. Feazel
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; J. C. Pirmioc, Special Judge; 1. The court had no jurisdiction. The claims were for less than $100. The jurisdiction depends upon the amount of each cause of action. 89 Ark. 435; 66 Id. 314; 78 Id. 595; 83 Id. 372; 113 Id; 490; 114 Id. 304. 2.The court erred in its instructions. The place of the sale was Nashville. 83 Ark. 548; 45 Id. 37; 33 Id. 465; 96 U. S. 258; 11 E. C. L., § 2, p. 753; 59 Pac. 36; 68 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; J. C. Pirmioc, Special Judge; 1. The court had no jurisdiction. The claims were for less than $100. The jurisdiction depends upon the amount of each cause of action. 89 Ark. 435; 66 Id. 314; 78 Id. 595; 83 Id. 372; 113 Id; 490; 114 Id. 304. 2.The court erred in its instructions. The place of the sale was Nashville. 83 Ark. 548; 45 Id. 37; 33 Id. 465; 96 U. S. 258; 11 E. C. L., § 2, p. 753; 59 Pac. 36; 68 Am. Dec. 156; 11 E. C. L., § 10, p. 758; lb., § 22; 78 Ark. 402; 88 Id. 557. 1. The peaches were to be sold at Nashville. An agent must obey instructions.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellee is a grower of peaches in Howard County, Arkansas, and employed appellants to sell his crop of peaches for the year 1916. He agreed to pay a certain commission on the sales. He instituted this action against appellants in the circuit court of Howard County to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a breach of the terms of the contract in shipping the peaches to Chicago and selling them on the market there instead of selling them to dealers at Nashville, Arkansas:
It is alleged in the complaint- that appellee gave instructions to appellants to sell the peaches at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Friend v. Smith Gin Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Houston Rice Co. v. ReevesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Rhee v. L. K. Small Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Coyne Bros. v. LeslieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917