McDonough v. Williams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; The court erred in refusing to permit defendant to show by J. M. Spradfing the value of the land options taken by defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; The court erred in refusing to permit defendant to show by J. M. Spradfing the value of the land options taken by defendant. The ground of objection is not shown, the writing was never accepted by either party as the whole contract, and parol eyidence is admissible to show what the contract actually was. 55 Ark. 115; 27 Id. 512. It was admissible to show the real consideration of which the land options were part. 75 Ark. 94. This is not an action between the parties to that contract. In such cases the doctrine which excludes parol…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This is the second appeal in this case, and the issues and facts are sufficiently set forth in the statement and opinion on the former appeal, to be found' in vol. 77, page 261, of our reports. As was stated in that opinion, the action is for damages, grounded on fraud and deceit alleged to have been practiced by appellant upon the appellee in the purchase by the former of shares of corporation stock from the latter. The relation of trust and confidence is set up by the appellee as having existed between him and appellant at the time of the sale of the stock, and it is alleged that certain…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mason v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by14 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. ForemanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
- United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919
- Eaves Ex Rel. Eaves v. CoxeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Ford Motor Co. v. FishSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Missouri Pacific Transportation Co. v. SackerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.