Miller v. Physick
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring Cvrouit Cow't. Hon. Libeety Bartlett, Circuit Judge. The whole question is as to the sufficiency of the delivery, which is essential to the validity of the instrument, though the manner is not material.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring Cvrouit Cow't. Hon. Libeety Bartlett, Circuit Judge. The whole question is as to the sufficiency of the delivery, which is essential to the validity of the instrument, though the manner is not material. It is a question of intention, and,should be left to the jury. 11 Verm. 621. A deed found in the possession of the grantee will be presumed to have been delivered. 1 McLean, 321; 6 Mo. 326. A delivery to an agent, or to a stranger for the use of the plaintiff is good. 9 Porter {Ala.) 650; Smith on Gon., 9; and á delivery to the co-obligor for the use of the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice ComptoN
Miller, the plaintiff below, sued Physiek, in the Hot Spring circuit court, on a writing obligatory for the sum of sixteen hundred dollars. As a defence to the action, the defendant pleaded that the writing sued on was not delivered to the plaintiff. On replication and issue to this plea, a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The evidence in the record discloses the following facts. The writing obligatory was signed and sealed by J. E. Stribling as principal, and Eobert…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Holt v. Werbe Werbe v. HoltCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952
- Van Huss v. WootenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Young v. Evans-Snyder-Buel Commission Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Ransom v. RansomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Brooks v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.