Walsh v. Frank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to the Circuit Court of Chicot county. The Hon. Theodoeic F. SoeRells, Circuit Judge. If the general custom was proven by the evidence and the jury so found, plaintiff was in effect insurer of goods, and on loss was liable to defendant therefor. 13 Ark. 461 and cases cited.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Chicot county. The Hon. Theodoeic F. SoeRells, Circuit Judge. If the general custom was proven by the evidence and the jury so found, plaintiff was in effect insurer of goods, and on loss was liable to defendant therefor. 13 Ark. 461 and cases cited. The general custom was proven and could well have been proven, and verdict cannot be disturbed, 1 Hall 84; 13 Ark. 236, 295; 15 Ark. 403; 14 Axk. 706. The instructions all taken together were proper, and certainly not unfavorable to plaintiff. 1 S. PI. & Ev. 398; 2 Sumn. 377; 10 Shep. 90; 7 Ala. 335; 1 Spears 249,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of a shipment of goods from the plaintiff, a merchant of the city of St. Louis, Mo., to the defendant, a merchant of Arkansas. It was admitted that the defendant ordered the goods, and that they were shipped upon a steamboat, and bill of lading sent as usual, with usual advices of shipment, and that the goods were lost, by the sinking of the boat, in the Mississippi river, before reaching their destination.
The point of contest was, whether the plaintiff ought to have insured the goods. It was admitted that he was not specially-ordered to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Connelly v. ParkesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923