Little Rock & Ft. Smith R. R. v. Perry
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pope Circuit Court. Hon. R. C. Bullock, Special Judge. STATEMENT. This suit was commenced in the Pope Circuit Court, by-Perry, against the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company, in May, 1877. The plaintiffs case is best stated by copying the following amended complaint, filed on the-26th September, 1879. “The plaintiff, J. H. Perry, states that the defendant,, the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway, is indebted to and owes him the just sum of $8,053.77,…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pope Circuit Court. Hon. R. C. Bullock, Special Judge. STATEMENT. This suit was commenced in the Pope Circuit Court, by-Perry, against the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company, in May, 1877. The plaintiffs case is best stated by copying the following amended complaint, filed on the-26th September, 1879. “The plaintiff, J. H. Perry, states that the defendant,, the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway, is indebted to and owes him the just sum of $8,053.77, after all just credits* for work and labor done, materials furnished, supplies advanced, and money laid out and expended by…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Eakin, J.
The complaint is intended to set forth a cause of action at law, for services rendered, material furnished, money expended, etc., by Perry, for and in behalf of the defendant railway company, for which it afterwards promised to pay. The promise is the gist of the action, and its denial makes an issue exclusively cognizable at law. The history and circumstances of the transaction are set forth in the first paragraph of the complaint, not as grounds upon which the plaintiff directly seeks equitable relief, but, rather, to show the consideration of the promise, the inducement…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Walls v. BrundidgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Moore & Handley Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Harrill v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Stone v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Kirkup v. Anaconda Amusement Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.