Barham v. Kizzia
Decision Date | 09 October 1911 |
Parties | BARHAM v. KIZZIA |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
M Rountree and G. R. Haynie, for appellants.
Sam T Poe and George A. McConnell, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion on the first appeal is reported in 94 Ark. 158, (Barham v. Bank of Delight), and a sufficient statement of the case there made. It was remanded, and no new facts developed upon the second trial, in which appellee recovered a judgment, from which this appeal is taken.
It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction in favor of the appellant and in giving instructions numbered one and two for appellee. The law of the case was plainly laid down on the former appeal, and said instructions numbered one and two were not warranted by the testimony and in accordance with the law, as declared. We said there:
The undisputed testimony in the case shows that there was a controversy between the parties, as to the amount due, and about which there had been some sharp correspondence; that a member of the creditor firm had had several conversations with one of the members of the debtor firm, who insisted on getting the matter adjusted, and had been assured by him that his company should have everything that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Gibbs
...only will not avail him." To the same effect see Cunningham v. Rauch-Darragh Grain Co., 98 Ark. 269, 135 S.W. 831, and Barham v. Kizzia, 100 Ark. 251, 140 S.W. 6. It insisted, however, that there is no accord and satisfaction here for the reason that the appellee milling company was induced......
-
Collier Commission Company v. Wright
...cars, and was given to him with the statements showing the full amount due him according to these statements. 150 Ark. 197; 94 Ark. 158; 100 Ark. 251; 98 269; 122 Ark. 212; 148 Ark. 512; 134 Ark. 36. 3. The rule as to lost profits is predicated wholly upon one party to the contract being pr......
-
Whittaker Chain Tread Co. v. Standard Auto Supply Co.
...651, 47 S.W. 563; Potter v. Douglass, 44 Conn. 541; Cooper v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R., 82 Miss. 634, 35 So. 162; Barham v. Kizzia, 100 Ark. 251, 140 S.W. 6; Thomas v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 144 Wis. 470, N.W. 522; Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co. (Iowa) 139 N.W. 1083. See also in thi......
-
Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Gibbs
...only will not avail him." To the same effect see Cunningham v. Rauch-Darrach Grain Co., 98 Ark. 273, 135 S. W. 831, and Barham v. Kizzia, 100 Ark. 252, 140 S. W. 6. It is insisted, however, that there is no accord and satisfaction here, for the reason that the appellee milling company was i......