Hamilton & Co. v. Ford
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Lafayette Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Mitchbl, Circuit Judge. First — There must be a wrongful detention after a demand, not a wrongful possession at any time. 81¡. Ark., 93; JfO ib., 555. Second — The first, second and third instructions for plaintiff are too broad and general, and calculated to mislead.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Lafayette Circuit Court. Hon. C. E. Mitchbl, Circuit Judge. First — There must be a wrongful detention after a demand, not a wrongful possession at any time. 81¡. Ark., 93; JfO ib., 555. Second — The first, second and third instructions for plaintiff are too broad and general, and calculated to mislead. They proceed on the theory that no title to the goods passed, but only the possession; and they exclude the proposition that it was necessary for Ford to restore Hamilton in statu quo, before Ford could rescind. 15 Ark., £86; 17 ib.\ 608; £0 ib., £8 ib., 196. Third — When a party…
1Opinion of the Court
Hon. W. C. Ratclifee, Sp. J.
Richard B. Ford commenced his action for the recovery of possession of certain specific personal property, in the Lafayette circuit court on the 29th day of July, 1869. An affidavit was filed, and an order of delivery issued. The property in controversy consisted of a remnant of a stock of merchandise in a store in Mar’s Hill, in said county of Lafayette. The complaint contained a list of the articles claimed, as did also the affidavit and order of delivery. The value of each article was not set out in the affidavit. The aggregate value of the goods was placed at…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sibeck v. McTiernanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Stewart v. FlemingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- United States Automobile Co. v. DeshongSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918