Legal Opinion

Oil City Iron Works v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 10, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). If the evidence is in conflict as to whether the promise is independent or collateral, the question is for the jury. Davis v. Patrick, 141 U. S. 479.

As was said in Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. (U. S.) 28, “whenever the main purpose and object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to subserve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself or damage to the other contracting 'party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Davis v. PatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Security Life Insurance Co. of America v. BatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  3. Battle v. DraperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  4. Pine Bluff Heading Co. v. BockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  5. Black Bros. Lumber Co. v. VarnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Phillips v. GravesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  2. Arkansas Valley Feed Mills, Inc. v. Fox De Luxe Foods, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1959
  3. Boddy v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  4. Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2011
  5. McMillan v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API