McCarthy v. McArthur
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court. George M. ChapliNe, Judge. Parol evidence is always admissible to show bow the measurement should be made. 49 N. Y. 64; 9 Gray, 401; 15 Ohio St. 179; 2 Zabriskie, 22 N. J. L. 165; 9 Wend. 346; 15 M. & W. 737. Evidence of usage is received, as any other parol evidence, when a written contract is under consideration. Starkie, Ev. 637-710; 3 Green. Ev. § 276; 69 Am. Dec. 298; 1 Green.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court. George M. ChapliNe, Judge. Parol evidence is always admissible to show bow the measurement should be made. 49 N. Y. 64; 9 Gray, 401; 15 Ohio St. 179; 2 Zabriskie, 22 N. J. L. 165; 9 Wend. 346; 15 M. & W. 737. Evidence of usage is received, as any other parol evidence, when a written contract is under consideration. Starkie, Ev. 637-710; 3 Green. Ev. § 276; 69 Am. Dec. 298; 1 Green. Ev. § 292; 18 Mo. 509; 81 Mo. 37; 70 Md. 124; 79 Mich. 307. It was error to exclude the depositions of Dan Carey, Thos. Welsch and Geo. K. McCormack. 86 Ga. 408; 23 Me. 90; 6…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
J. S. McArthur and Wood Eainwater brought an action against J. H. McCarthy and George Eeiehardt, partners doing business under the firm name and style of McCarthy & Eeich-ardt, upon a contract in the words and figures following:
“Little Eock, Ark., November 29, 1898.
“Memorandum: It is agreed that James S. McArthur is to have the clearing of the right of way, subject to all conditions named in the Choctaw & Memphis specifications. He is to do 20 miles or more as hereafter agreed upon, and to work at such points as is necessary from time to time, for which we agree to pay $12 per acre. * * * No…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barnard v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Walls v. . BaileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- National Bank v. BurkhardtSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Hearne v. Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Oelricks v. FordSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- A. M. Dillow & Co. v. City of MonticelloSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. AsmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. HendersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Montgomery v. Arkansas Cold Storage & Ice Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.