Burton & Townsend v. Baird & Bright
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Cleburne Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. 1. The transcript from the United States Court was not competent evidence. The same matter was not in issue, nor was the cause between the same parties. (Greenl. on Ur., 9th ed.,vol. l,sees. 522-28; 1 Macq. U. L. Cases, 913; Jacob’s Fish.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Cleburne Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. 1. The transcript from the United States Court was not competent evidence. The same matter was not in issue, nor was the cause between the same parties. (Greenl. on Ur., 9th ed.,vol. l,sees. 522-28; 1 Macq. U. L. Cases, 913; Jacob’s Fish. Dig., vol. 5, p. 7922; 1 Gray, 299, 303.) And the instruction based on such incompetent evidence was erroneous and misleading. 26 Ark., 513. 2. It was not necessary for appellees to “stipulate” to deliver the mill “at their own risk” before they were responsible. If they, acting under the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This action was upon a promissory note, and the defense was no consideration. The evidence tended to prove that Burton & Townsend, the makers of the note, had by letter ordered of Baird & Bright, dealers in machinery at Little Rock, one thirty inch Bradford corn mill, with directions to ship the same by river to Cates’' landing on the Arkansas River ; that the mill was shipped in good order from Little Rock on the steamboat Mill Boy, consigned to the defendants at Cates’ landing, and was put off at its destination on a sand bar about forty yards from the main bank of the river, that being the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. PfeiferSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Gottlieb v. RinaldoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Harper v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- May v. McGaugheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Kelly v. KeithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.