Phillips Cooperative Gin Co. v. Toll
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentSam Robinson, Associate Justice
I cannot agree that Instruction No. 5 requested by appellees is erroneous. In fact, I can see no valid distinction between that instruction and appellant’s Instruction No. 4. Ap-pellees ’ Instruction No. 5 merely told the jury that if they should find that W. T. Jackson was engaged in work of the Gin Company and that the Gin Company had the right to control and direct his conduct at the time of the collision, then in law Jackson was agent for the Gin Company. Instruction No. 4 given on behalf of appellant in effect told the jury the same thing. This instruction reads: “A servant is a person…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Moore & Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Cooper v. CooperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Hollingsworth & Frazier v. BarnettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Wright v. McDanielSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.