Cox v. Smith
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Scott Chancery Court; /. V. Bourland, Chancellor; 1. Appellee will not be permitted to vary or contradict the contract by parol testimony. 73 Ark. 431, '432; 71 Ark. 185, 188. 2. The court erred in holding that time is not the essence of the contract. 93 Ark. 375. 1. The issue in this case must be the whole transaction as made up by the complaint, the bond as an exhibit thereto, and the testimony taken in the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott Chancery Court; /. V. Bourland, Chancellor; 1. Appellee will not be permitted to vary or contradict the contract by parol testimony. 73 Ark. 431, '432; 71 Ark. 185, 188. 2. The court erred in holding that time is not the essence of the contract. 93 Ark. 375. 1. The issue in this case must be the whole transaction as made up by the complaint, the bond as an exhibit thereto, and the testimony taken in the case. “When parties accept pleadings as raising issues and go to trial upon them, it is too late to make objections here.” 35 Ark. 109-111; 33 Ark. 107-116; 47 Ark. 493.…
1Opinion of the CourtFrauenThae, J.
This was an action instituted by W. R. Cox, the plaintiff below, seeking to recover from the defendant the sum of $300 and to have the same declared a lien on a lot situated in the town of AValdron. The suit was founded upon a written .instrument executed by .the defendant, which was made an exhibit to the complaint. The writing is as follows: “Know all men h)' these presents: I, H. N. Smith, of Waldron, Arkansas, am held and firmly bound unto AY. R. Cox, of Waldron, Arkansas, in the sum of $300 in lawful money of the United States of America, conditioned, however, as follows: Whereas the…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Bowman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- J. H. Magill Lumber Co. v. Lane-White Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Boston Store v. SchleuterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Latham v. First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Taliaferro v. BarnettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- American Sales Book Co. v. WhitakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Umberger v. WestmorelandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- Bodcaw Oil Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Next Generation, Inc. v. Wal-Mart, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.