Conoway v. Newman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
■Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. H. Greenwald is bound by the fraudulent representations of her agent in these negotiations. 5 Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
■Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. H. Greenwald is bound by the fraudulent representations of her agent in these negotiations. 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. of E. 322. The test of the deceit and fraud in this case is the preconceived intention of the agent to defraud. 47 Ark. 247. His misrepresentations related to material facts in inducing the notes and mortgage to be signed, and it is clear that Conoway and Atkinson relied upon his representations being true. 31 Ark. 170; 30 Ark. 686; 11 Ark. 58; 26 Ark. 28; 19 Ark. 522. See also 20 Cyc. 44; 47 Ark. 148; 35 Md. 439; 149…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action in equity instituted in the Monroe Chancery Court by J. A. Conoway and Goldman & Company against the Newman Mill & Lumber Company, R. L. Newman, J. D. Atkinson and H. Greenwald.
Goldman & Company is a partnership, composed of J. D. Goldman, W. L. Jeffries and S. Bacharach. The Newman Mill & Lumber Company is a partnership, composed of the plaintiff, J. A. Conoway, and the defendants R. L. Newman and J. D. Atkinson. They were engaged in operating a sawmill in Monroe County, Arkansas, during the year 1907. Their assets consisted chiefly of the sawmill outfit complete and 21…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reynolds v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
3Cited by11 opinions
- Delta School of Commerce, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
- P.A.M. Transport, Inc. v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue ShieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Harriage v. DaleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Boyd v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Scullin v. NewmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.