Legal Opinion

Furst and Thomas v. Rowland

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 12, 1934No. 4-3294PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). We think this case is ruled by Athletic Tea Co. v. McCormack, 159 Ark. 407, 252 S. W. 7. In the case referred to, this court had under consideration the liability of sureties on a sales contract, in all essential respects not dissimilar to the one here under consideration. There, as here, the contract provided for weekly reports by the principal to the obligee, which provision was ignored by the principal and acquiesced in by the obligees, and we stated the law as follows:

“Where one employed as sales representative of appellant gave a bond, with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Osborn v. LeMaireSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  2. Athletic Tea Co. v. McCormackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  3. Milller v. FriedheimSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nelson v. BartellWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Furst v. KrugerNebraska Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Gazette Publishing Company v. StephensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API