Lancaster v. Case
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge; 1. The verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence. The entering and cutting are admitted, but the defense is that it was done under permission of one Matlock, a tenant of plaintiff, under the honest, belief that the tenant had authority to give permission. Bnt no snch permission was given or proven.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge; 1. The verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence. The entering and cutting are admitted, but the defense is that it was done under permission of one Matlock, a tenant of plaintiff, under the honest, belief that the tenant had authority to give permission. Bnt no snch permission was given or proven. Nominal damages, at least, should have been given for the trespass and injury. 38 Cyc. 1123, 1064; 14 Ark. 431; 1 Id. 448. 2. The court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to make proof as.to damages suffered. 67 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant sued to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the wrongful and unauthorized cutting of the timber on certain lands owned by him lying on the bank of White river and’the consequent caving of the banks resulting from denuding the land of the standing timber.
Appellee defended upon the ground that he had authority to cut the trees which he did cut, and that no damages had resulted from their cutting. Two principal questions are presented, and these are questions of fact. Other questions are discussed, but they are subordinate to these principal questions.
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Conway v. CourseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913