Legal Opinion

Murdock v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 23, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is insisted for reversal that the court erred in refusing to allow the parol evidence introduced, explaining the terms of “a turnkey job” under the provisions of the contract, and in giving instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the plaintiff, and refusing to give requested instructions Nos. 8 and 10 for the appellant. , . i

Instruction No. 3, complained of, told the jury that, “under the terms of the contract and under the evidence herein,” that the plaintiff was required to drill the well under the direction and supervision of the Lion Oil and Refining…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v. TalleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  2. Ingham Lumber Co. v. IngersollSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  3. McCarthy v. McArthurSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
  4. Polzin v. BeeneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  5. Batton v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Priest v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  2. Black & Black Oil Co. v. Smith Drilling Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API