Flake v. Hill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; Jaméis Cochran, Judge; 1. Bert Hill was not sworn as a witness. 2. The verdict is clearly excessive and contrary to law and the evidence. 81 Ark. 13. 3. Plaintiff absolutely failed to make out his case, even on his own testimony and not sworn to. He himself violated the contract. The court properly overruled the demurrer and refused appellant’s instructions 1, 2 and 3. It properly gave Nos. 1 to 7 on its own motion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; Jaméis Cochran, Judge; 1. Bert Hill was not sworn as a witness. 2. The verdict is clearly excessive and contrary to law and the evidence. 81 Ark. 13. 3. Plaintiff absolutely failed to make out his case, even on his own testimony and not sworn to. He himself violated the contract. The court properly overruled the demurrer and refused appellant’s instructions 1, 2 and 3. It properly gave Nos. 1 to 7 on its own motion. The judgment is right on the evidence, even if ap-pellee was not sworn. No errors are pointed out properly in the abstract of…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphbeys, J.
Appellee instituted this suit against appellants on the 2d day of February, 1915, in the Ozark District of Franklin County, to recover damages on account of the alleged unlawful withholding of certain chattels to which appellee was entitled by virtue of a compromise agreement and order entered in a re-plevin suit by appellant Flake against appellee.
All of the material allegations in the complaint were denied by appellants.
The cause was submitted to the jury upon the pleadings, evidence adduced, .and instructions of the court. A verdict for $65 was returned in favor of appellee and judgment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. HairstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brooks, Receiver v. Wooten-Epes Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Henson v. BradenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928