Wiegel v. Road Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Geo. W. Clark, Judge; It was the duty of the buyer to furnish the cars. 45 N. E. 126; 27 Atl. 836; 123 Fed. 655; 133 Id. 409; 40 L. R. A. 534. See also 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928 and cases cited. But if not appellee at no time claimed failure to get cars as a violation or breach of the contract, but the claim was that Wiegel failed to furnish the rock as required by the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; Geo. W. Clark, Judge; It was the duty of the buyer to furnish the cars. 45 N. E. 126; 27 Atl. 836; 123 Fed. 655; 133 Id. 409; 40 L. R. A. 534. See also 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928 and cases cited. But if not appellee at no time claimed failure to get cars as a violation or breach of the contract, but the claim was that Wiegel failed to furnish the rock as required by the contract. Where a contract is for mutual acts, the refusal of one to perform justifies the other in treating the contract as rescinded. 38 Ark. 174; 22 Id. 258. See also 79 Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This is the second appeal in this cause, the opinion on the former appeal being found in 126 Ark. 31.
The law of the case was declared on this former appeal, where the contract out of which this litigation arises was set out, so it remains only to determine whether the law as there declared was properly applied at the trial from which this appeal comes, and we restate here only such facts as must be recited in the decision of that question.
We said, in construing the contract under which the parties operated, that the district was not required to take the entire output of the plant, but that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wiegel v. Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916