St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Winslow
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Jonesboro District; R. E. Dudley, Judge; The court should have admitted the evidence of settlement offered by appellant pleaded in the amended answer; (a) there was a contract of settlement between .the claim agent of appellant and Charlie Winslow, son and agent of appellee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Jonesboro District; R. E. Dudley, Judge; The court should have admitted the evidence of settlement offered by appellant pleaded in the amended answer; (a) there was a contract of settlement between .the claim agent of appellant and Charlie Winslow, son and agent of appellee. Generally an accord without satisfaction cannot be pleaded in bar, but where there are mutual promises and undertakings not performed by him who has the cause of action, or where he who has the cause of action, prevents satisfaction, accord may be pleaded in bar. 2 Ark. 225; 7 Col.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee recovered judgment to compensate an injury sustained by her while traveling as a passenger on one of appellant’s trains; and only two errors are assigned for the reversal of the judgment.
The first is that the court erroneously refused to permit appellant’s claim agent to testify “that at the instance of the-appellee’s agent, designated by her in his and the agent’s presence, the agent went to see Charlie Winslow, her son and agent, and they agreed upon a settlement by the appellant paying to him, as appellee’s agent, $100, upon condition that Dr. Copeland, who was appellee’s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Lewis v. ArnnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by1 opinion
- Haglin v. HuntSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933