Legal Opinion

Moraz v. Melton

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 2, 1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

(after stating the facts). The principal ground relied upon by the defendants for a reversal of the judgment is that the promise of Moraz to pay for the coal, if made, was unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

In determining whether an oral promise is original or collateral, the intention of the parties at the time it was made must be regarded; and, in determining such intention, the words of the promise, the situation of the parties, and all of the circumstances attending the transaction should be taken into consideration. Millsaps v. Nixon, 102 Ark. 435, and Black Bros. Lumber Co. v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Millsaps v. NixonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  2. Black Bros. Lumber Co. v. VarnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gulf Liquid Fertilizer Co. v. TitusTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Oil City Iron Works v. BradleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  3. Foster-Grayson Lumber Co. v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  4. Lonoke Production Credit Ass'n v. Pfeifer Milling Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API