Legal Opinion

Morrilton Ice & Fuel Co. v. Montgomery

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 3, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

-Kirby, J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a decree for the balance of the purchase money due for machinery or apparatus sold to appellants, and foreclosure of ma-terialman’s lien therefor.

Appellees, an Illinois corporation engaged in business in Chicago, upon receipt of a telegram from appellants, stating: “In market for sterilizer. Send representative at once. Wire.” Sent its agent to appellants engaged in the manufacture of ice at Morrilton, and sold them, under the terms of a written contract, “One (1) SEL 3 Hartman electrolytic sterilizer 400/500 G-.P.H. 2020.”

The contract recites the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mitchell Manufacturing Co. v. KempnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  2. Matthews v. Georgia State Savings Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  3. Standard Lumber Co. of Pine Bluff v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  4. Texas Company v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  5. Pfeiffer Stone Co. v. BrogdonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lyle v. LatouretteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
  2. Hanson Motor Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
  3. United States Ozone Co. v. Morrilton Ice Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  4. Rhode v. KremerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  5. Hanson Motor Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API