Coyne Bros. v. Leslie
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Gowlvng, Judge; 1. 129 Ark. 163 involves similar questions, but is materially different on the facts. This court there held that where the shipper gives no instructions and consigns to a commission house, there can be no recovery unless the factor fails to obtain the highest market price.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Gowlvng, Judge; 1. 129 Ark. 163 involves similar questions, but is materially different on the facts. This court there held that where the shipper gives no instructions and consigns to a commission house, there can be no recovery unless the factor fails to obtain the highest market price. It is presumed the factor did his duty, and there is a total failure of proof here to show that the factor failed to obtain the highest price in Chicago. 2. No instructions were given, hence the plaintiff acquiesced in the shipment. 45 Ark. 37: He is estopped.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
During the year 1916 the plaintiff, W. F. Leslie, was a peach grower in Howard County, Arkansas, and employed the defendants, Coyne Brothers, who were engaged in the commission business in Chicago, to sell his crop of peaches on commission. Defendants kept an agent, Mr. Turquette, at Nashville, the county site and business center of Howard County, who conducted the transactions for his principal with plaintiff and handled the fruit committed to the care of the defendants. The contract between plaintiff and defendant was made orally by the plaintiff and Turquette and there was no specification…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Meyer, Weiss & Co. v. MorganMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
- Coyne Bros. v. FeazelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917