Van Hoozer v. Hendricks
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; James Cochran, Judge; 1. The proof on behalf of appellants is practically uncontradicted of a warranty and failure and that the sale was induced by through false and fraudulent representations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; James Cochran, Judge; 1. The proof on behalf of appellants is practically uncontradicted of a warranty and failure and that the sale was induced by through false and fraudulent representations. Instruction No. 2 given was error and 'does not state the law. 135 S. W. 438; see also 11 Ark. 58; 38 Id. 339; 60 Id. 387. 2. Instruction No. 3, asked by defendants, should have been given, as it states the law correctly that if Hendricks warranted the tractor or made false representations inducing the purchase they should find for defendants.
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellee instituted suit against appellants in the Logan Circuit Court, Northern District, for $1,000 and interest, balance of the purchase money for a tractor engine sold by appellee to appellants. The unpaid purchase price was evidenced by a note, executed at Fort Smith, Arkansas, May 16, 1918, for said sum, bearing interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum until paid, due and payable October 15, 1918. This note was made the basis of the action.
Appellants interposed two defenses to liability on the note; first, that appellee warranted the tractor to be a good and practicable machine for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reeves v. Hot SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Love v. CowgerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Crouch v. Gilbert.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Hale v. Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Morris v. MauneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950