Bromley v. Aday
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Searcy Circuit Court. Elbridge G. Mitci-iell, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was brought by appellees, J. W. and J. R. Aday, to recover the possession of a storehouse and certain lots. The complaint alleged that appellants, Bromley & Hensley, were tenants of appellees, and that appellants were unlawfully holding over the premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Searcy Circuit Court. Elbridge G. Mitci-iell, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was brought by appellees, J. W. and J. R. Aday, to recover the possession of a storehouse and certain lots. The complaint alleged that appellants, Bromley & Hensley, were tenants of appellees, and that appellants were unlawfully holding over the premises. Appellants admitted that they were tenants, but denied that appellees were their landlords, and denied that their term had expired, and denied appellees5 ownership or right of possession. Giving the testimony the utmost strain possible for…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts.) The burden of proof was upon appellees. The proof utterly fails to show that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between appellants and. appellees. It is not even shown that Joblin had any authority to make a sale of the premises in controversy, much less Barr, who, in this so-called agreement of sale, acted only as the agent of Joblin. He was not the agent of Hill, Fontaine & Company to sell lands. Joblin assumed to have authority to sell lands for Hill, Fontaine & Company, and the court seems to have treated this assumption of authority on his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stewart v. MurrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Peel v. LaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Norton v. HindsleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Poppe v. BowlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931