Barr v. Vaughan
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; J. 8. Maples, Judge; 1. The measure of damages is fixed by the contract at $100 liquidated damages, and. in no event could more be recovered. 2. The court erred in its instructions. 100 Ark. 321; 83 Id. 192; etc. I. There is no error in the instructions. 74 Ark. 41; 73 Id. 338; 90 Id. 88, 256. 2. The damages were stipulated and settled by the contract. 1 Sutherland on Dam. 740. It is not penalty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; J. 8. Maples, Judge; 1. The measure of damages is fixed by the contract at $100 liquidated damages, and. in no event could more be recovered. 2. The court erred in its instructions. 100 Ark. 321; 83 Id. 192; etc. I. There is no error in the instructions. 74 Ark. 41; 73 Id. 338; 90 Id. 88, 256. 2. The damages were stipulated and settled by the contract. 1 Sutherland on Dam. 740. It is not penalty. Ill la. 693; 83 N. W. 791. But this does not cover the $5.00 per night compensation which amounted to $330.00. 87 Ark. 545. 3. The contract is free from…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The parties to this litigation entered into the following contract:
“This contract entered into this 7th day of February, 1917, by and between J. C. Vaughan and Max Hulse, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, party of the first part, and Frank Barr, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, party of the second part, witnesseth:
“1. That for and in consideration of the .sums of money hereinafter provided to be paid by the party of the second part to parties of the first part, J. C. Vaughan and Max Hulse parties of the first part mutually agree and covenant with the party of the second part that they will close down…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Street v. ShullSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933