Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge; This is the second appeal in this case. 214 S. W. 17. The judgment on this appeal should also be reversed, because the testimony of the administrator shows that- he testified to a conclusion and not to facts within his own personal knowledge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge; This is the second appeal in this case. 214 S. W. 17. The judgment on this appeal should also be reversed, because the testimony of the administrator shows that- he testified to a conclusion and not to facts within his own personal knowledge. The whole of Wall’s testimony was incompetent. 214 S. W. 23; 213 S. W. 4. Where a clause in a contract is ambiguous, to determine its true meaning and the intention of the parties, a witness can not state his conclusions, but the facts within his personal knowledge. 110 111. App. 23; 112 Id. 50; 78…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is a petition to enforce an attorney’s lien under the statute, by Jo Johnson and others against the Missouri Pacific Eailroad Company. This is the second appeal in the case. The opinion on the former appeal is reported under the style of Johnson v. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co., 139 Ark. 507.
On the former appeal the court held that where a written instrument contains a latent ambiguity, parol testimony of the facts and circumstances surrounding its execution may be given to clear away its uncertainty, such evidence being admissible, not for the purpose of adding to, nor substracting from the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- Adams v. ShellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930