Mason v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Carroll «Circuit Court, Western District. * R. M. Thornton & Co., a partnership consisting of R. M. Thornton and W. T. Ewing, filed their complaint against the appellant, F. E. Mason, and afterwards filed their amende.d com' plaint, in which they charge that on the ioth day of August, 1900, they were partners doing business in the City of Eureka Springs, under the firm name of R. M. Thornton & Co. But that, at the time of the filing of the amended complaint, R.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll «Circuit Court, Western District. * R. M. Thornton & Co., a partnership consisting of R. M. Thornton and W. T. Ewing, filed their complaint against the appellant, F. E. Mason, and afterwards filed their amende.d com' plaint, in which they charge that on the ioth day of August, 1900, they were partners doing business in the City of Eureka Springs, under the firm name of R. M. Thornton & Co. But that, at the time of the filing of the amended complaint, R. M. Thornton had acquired the interest of the said W. T. Ewing in said partnership, and all the rights growing out of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCuLRdciT, J.
It is urged on behalf of appellant that the complaint states two causes of action, one upon contract of warranty and another for fraud and deceit in misrepresenting the price of the goods sold; that the causes can not be joined in one action; and that the motion of appellant to require an election by plaintiff should have been granted. The complaint is somewhat -ambiguous in terms, but it does not state two separate, causes of action. It states a good cause of action for fraud and deceit, and. should have been treated as such. Fordyce v. Nix, 58 Ark. 136; Ross v. Mather, 51 N. Y. 181; New…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- New Orleans, Jackson, & Great Northern Railroad v. HurstMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
- Supervisors of Kewaunee County v. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Fordyce v. NixSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Gammill v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Louisiana Molasses Co. v. Fort Smith Wholesale Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stewart v. FlemingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- McDonough v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Rose v. FoutchCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1926
- Stewart v. Salisbury Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Kohl v. TaylorWashington Supreme Court · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.