J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Co. v. Katter
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. We concede that the order given the salesman, Weaver, for goods was under the statute of frauds, not binding, but if Katter actually accepted and received part of the goods and paid for same the sale was binding under the statute, and the court erred in giving instruction No. 1 for plaintiff. 2. It was also error to refuse instruction No. 3 for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. We concede that the order given the salesman, Weaver, for goods was under the statute of frauds, not binding, but if Katter actually accepted and received part of the goods and paid for same the sale was binding under the statute, and the court erred in giving instruction No. 1 for plaintiff. 2. It was also error to refuse instruction No. 3 for plaintiff. This instruction presents every phase of the case as made by the pleadings and evidence. Every phase of the statute of frauds has been settled by this court,…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
Plaintiff below, appellant here, brought this action against the defendant below, appellee here, upon an alleged past due account for goods sold appellee in the aggregate sum of $2,548.87. The account was itemized and made an exhibit to the complaint.
The appellee answered, denying that he was indebted to the appellant. He alleged that on the 12th of September, 1918, he verbally ordered certain dry goods from the appellant of the aggregate amount of $2,300; that some of the goods were to be shipped by the appellant to the appellee immediately, other goods of the order were to be shipped…
2Cited by1 opinion
- General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. WhatleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930