Fair v. Beal-Burrow Dry Goods Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Montgomery Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor; 1. The court erred in holding that there was no settlement or compromise of the matters in controversy between appellants and appellee. 2. The chancellor erred in not sustaining the claim for damages by appellants for loss of the property at-, tached, and appellee should be held liable for the loss by reason of its compromise and settlement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor; 1. The court erred in holding that there was no settlement or compromise of the matters in controversy between appellants and appellee. 2. The chancellor erred in not sustaining the claim for damages by appellants for loss of the property at-, tached, and appellee should be held liable for the loss by reason of its compromise and settlement. The chancellor was wrong in holding that there was no settlement but merely a proposition. Compromise of a disputed claim is a sufficient consideration for a settlement. 21 Ark. 69; 48…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The appellee, a mercantile firm in the city of Little Rock, filed an affidavit for a general attachment in the Montgomery Circuit Court against the appellants, alleging that Summit and Fair were partners and that the firm of Summit & Fair became indebted to the ap-pellee for merchandise; that Summit sold his interest in the firm to Dillard; that Dillard & Fair sold their entire stock of goods and merchandise to Byrd Carter and James Tucker; that Carter & Tucker sold their entire stock of goods and merchandise to Ira Warren. The grounds alleged for the attachment were that the various sales…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gardner v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Satchfield v. Laconia Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Lee v. SwillingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- Citizens' National Bank v. GannonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923