Campbell v. Kennerly
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; 1. In contracts of the kind involved here, substantial compliance with its requirements is sufficient. 38 Ark. 199; 64 Ark. 34, 40; 79 Ark. 506; 133 S. W. 1032. 2. Evidence introduced by appellees to the effect that, after the contract had been performed or when appellant was trying to adjust the matter with them and get them to pay for it, and additional work was being done to stop the water out of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; 1. In contracts of the kind involved here, substantial compliance with its requirements is sufficient. 38 Ark. 199; 64 Ark. 34, 40; 79 Ark. 506; 133 S. W. 1032. 2. Evidence introduced by appellees to the effect that, after the contract had been performed or when appellant was trying to adjust the matter with them and get them to pay for it, and additional work was being done to stop the water out of the furnaces in an effort to satisfy appellees, appellant agreed when they paid the $300.00 that the balance would be…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant instituted this action against appellees in the chancery court of Independence County, to recover the contract price for furnishing and installing a heating plant in a building owned by the latter at Batesville, and to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The contract price was $875, of which $350 was paid during the progress of the work, and the action is to recover the balance.
Appellees claim that there was not a substantial compliance with the contract in that the plant was not constructed and installed in a workmanlike manner and of proper material so as to afford satisfactory heat, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ark-Mo Zinc Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Mitchell v. CaplingerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Harris v. GrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908