Legal Opinion

Walden v. Fallis

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 10, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is insisted by counsel for the defendants that the. judgment should be reversed because the two instruments in. writing set out in our statement of facts were executed on the same day and should be considered together in interpreting the meaning of the contract sued on.. It is contended that, when'so considered, it is manifest that the $500 was not to be paid unless Curtis Walden was appointed postmaster as specified in the contract. In other words, it is contended that the two instruments show on their face that the payment of the $500 was not intended…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Meguire v. CorwineSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Arlington Hotel Co. v. RectorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. v. KelleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  4. Edwards v. RandleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  5. Belding v. VaughanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Russell & Axon v. HandshoeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
  2. Lutterloh v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  3. Fort Smith Appliance & Service Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
  4. Dewey Portland Cement Co. v. Benton County Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  5. Tribble v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API