Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Smith v. Northeast Randolph Development Corp.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 6, 1969No. 5-4979Published

1ConcurrenceJohn A. Fogleman, Justice

I agree that Points III and V should not be considered on this appeal for the reasons stated. Consideration of other points for reversal is not possible by reason of the failure of appellant to abstract the option in question in compliance with Rule 9 (d).

On the basis of the testimony abstracted, it would appear that there was merit in the contention that the option was withdrawn before acceptance. 'This is because the testimony abstracted would indicate that the option was granted to R. L. Spencer and accepted by appellee. Since it was an option granted for $1.00, it was a continuing offer…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hogan v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  2. Kelley v. ColdrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API