Snapp v. Stanwood
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. Appellant cannot be beld liable for money had and received where the proof shows affirmatively that he did not receive it. 22 Ark. 68; 23 Ark. 300; 11 Ark. 269. Refusal to so instruct was error on the part of the trial court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. Appellant cannot be beld liable for money had and received where the proof shows affirmatively that he did not receive it. 22 Ark. 68; 23 Ark. 300; 11 Ark. 269. Refusal to so instruct was error on the part of the trial court. An action for money had and received may be maintained, not only in case of actual receipt by defendant of money belonging to plaintiff, but in case of receipt of anything treated as or standing in lieu of money. 22 Ark. 68; 23 Ark. 294; 44 N. H. 291; 61 N. H. 339; 2 Greenl. Evid. § 118; 6 Gill, 81. Appellant…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
This is a suit by Mrs. Stanwood against her agent, Snapp, for the sum of $224, the amount of rents alleged to have been collected by him from one Middlebrook, the tenant on the farm of plaintiff in Woodruff county for the year 1895.
Plaintiff resided at Russellville, Arkansas, and her agent, Snapp, was, and for some years had been, as such, renting out her said farm, and collecting the rents annually, with no other authority. It appears that Snapp had collected the rents for the year 1895, but, in part payment of the same, had taken a note purporting to have been executed and delivered by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peay v. RingoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arkansas National Bank v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906