S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Kilgore
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court; Henry W. WeUs, Judge; A contract is to be construed as a whole, and the different sections thereof referring to the same subject-matter are to be read together. 93 Ark. 497. The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the whole instrument. 53 Ark. 58, 65; 23 Ark. 582. Under the purchaser’s agreement not to countermand, and the vendor’s guaranty that the goods were as represented, and promise that, if for any reason the tank was…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court; Henry W. WeUs, Judge; A contract is to be construed as a whole, and the different sections thereof referring to the same subject-matter are to be read together. 93 Ark. 497. The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the whole instrument. 53 Ark. 58, 65; 23 Ark. 582. Under the purchaser’s agreement not to countermand, and the vendor’s guaranty that the goods were as represented, and promise that, if for any reason the tank was defective or became so within one year, the vendor would “make it right” without charge and free of cost to the purchaser, it…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
Appellant was engaged in the mamifacture and sale of gasoline oil tanks, that are used as receptacles for storing gasoline. They are put in use by burying them under the ground and allowing pipes to run from the tank to any part of the building that may be desired. The tank is buried outside of the building or beneath it, and the oil is pumped through the pipe, and can be measxxred out a gallon at a time. Appellee bought one of these tanks of appellant, agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $122 under a coxxtract which contained the following clauses:
"It is agreed by the purchaser that this…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Bunch v. WeilSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Weed v. DyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
- Main v. DearingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Ward Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. IsbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Western Cabinet & Fixture Manufacturing Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Dyke v. MagdalenaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Hydrotex Industries v. FloydSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Hydrotex Industries v. SharpSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- Kull v. NobleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.