Lefils & Christian v. Sugg
Supreme Court of Arkansas
A-jppeal from Union Qi/remt Coivrt. Hon. SheltoN "WatsoN, Circuit Judge. contended that the appellee, by allowing bis sons to trade for themselves for the year 1850, and by paying the account so made, constituted them in law his agents, and became liable to pay the account subsequently made by them with the same parties ; and cited Story on Agency, sec. 45 and 55; 2 Kent Com., 614, 615; 2 Greenl.
Read the full summary
A-jppeal from Union Qi/remt Coivrt. Hon. SheltoN "WatsoN, Circuit Judge. contended that the appellee, by allowing bis sons to trade for themselves for the year 1850, and by paying the account so made, constituted them in law his agents, and became liable to pay the account subsequently made by them with the same parties ; and cited Story on Agency, sec. 45 and 55; 2 Kent Com., 614, 615; 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 65; 17 Mass. 98; 15 East. 34; 4 Conn. 288; and McKenzie vs. Stevens, 19 Ala. (N. S.) 691. contended that the case of McKenzie vs. Stevens, (19 Ala.,) referred to by the appellants, had no…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice WatKINS
There are two grounds, upon either of which, the judgment here appealed from will have to be affirmed.
The case was submitted for trial to the Court sitting as a jury, who, after hearing the evidence, found for the defendant, “to which finding,” as the bill of exceptions states, “the plaintiff excepted, but the Court overruled the exception, and gave judgment for the defendant.” As no question of law was raised during the progress of the trial, nor any motion made for new trial, so as to enable this Court to review, in that mode, the verdict of the Court, or jury, if manifestly aghinst the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. NewberryTexas Supreme Court · 1924
- Johnson v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Hicks v. BadhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
- Martin v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860