Simpson v. McDonald
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Pike Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained three counts: two of them charging the defendant in indebitatus assumpsit in different ways, and the other count seeking to render him liable on a quantum meruit. The case was tried upon the general issue, and there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Afterjudgment, the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, also his motion in arrest of judgment.
Read the full summary
Error to Pike Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained three counts: two of them charging the defendant in indebitatus assumpsit in different ways, and the other count seeking to render him liable on a quantum meruit. The case was tried upon the general issue, and there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Afterjudgment, the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, also his motion in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled; and he thereupon excepted to the opinion of the court, and spread the evidence adduced on the trial upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtLacv, Judge
Upon the first contract, which was partly express and partly implied, it is perfectly evident that the defendant was not bound, because the law raised no assumption on his part, by reason of the plaintiff’s entire failure to perform his part of the agreement. .Had the proof ended here, it is manifest that the defendant would have been exonerated from all liability whatever. But the testimony further shows that the first contract being cancelled, the parties subsequently entered into a second implied agreement, by which each became liable according to its terms or legal effect. The plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pickens v. StroudCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1983
- Coley v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Bell v. CarverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968