Legal Opinion

Kull v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 4, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Haet, 0. J:,

(after stating the facts). The first ground upon which it is sought to reverse the decree is that the account was verified by the affidavit of J. F. Hinds, and that it does not appear that he had authority to make the affidavit. The record shows that the account was signed “Dierks Lumber & Coal Company, by J. F. Hinds.” Now, the manager of the corporation had charge of its business at DeQueen and represented it in the particular transaction under consideration. In the eye of the law a corporation can only act through its officers or agents, and therefore an affidavit by a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Soda Fountain Co. v. StolzenbachSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
  2. Fortenheim v. Claflin, Allen & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
  3. Leifer Manufacturing Co. v. GrossSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  4. Wales-Riggs Plantations v. CastonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  5. Hess v. A. L. Ferguson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Madison Bank and Trust v. FIRST NAT. BANK, ETC.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Georgia State Savings Assoc. v. MarrsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  3. Ashby v. ShoptawSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  4. Madison Bank and Trust v. FIRST NAT. BANK, ETC.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API