Griffin v. Chesney
| Citation | 269 S.W. 582,168 Ark. 240 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 237 |
| Parties | GRIFFIN v. CHESNEY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; H. L. Pearson, Special Chancellor; affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
A. L Smith, for appellant.
McGill & McGill, for appellees.
The parties to this litigation entered into a written contract on the 10th day of February, 1917, whereby they agreed according to our interpretation of the contract, as follows Chesney, who was a local fire insurance agent representing four companies, sold, his agency to Griffin for $ 500 cash, which was paid upon the transfer of the agency for these four insurance companies from Chesney to Griffin. Chesney reserved the right, at his option, to solicit insurance business for Griffin, and was to be paid for any business written by him as follows: For all new business Chesney was to receive the entire premium, whether the policy was for a year or for a term of years, and new business was defined to mean not renewals of old policies, but business not on the books of Chesney at the time of the sale of his agency. From the commissions thus earned a deduction of twenty-five cent, for each policy issued by Griffin was to be made for a period of twelve months, dating from the date of the sale.
When Griffin desired Chesney to assist in securing renewals of existing policies, that service was to be rendered by Chesney, and one-half of the commission thus earned was to be paid him for this service.
Chesney also agreed that he would not enter into the fire insurance business in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, where his agency had been located, for himself, or in connection with any other agent, so long as "the party of the second part (Griffin) shall remain continuously and directly from the date of this contract in such business in this city, and not violate the terms of this contract."
The contract contained certain other provisions which need not be stated, as they are not involved in this litigation.
Suit was brought by Griffin, who alleged that Chesney had breached the contract by reentering the insurance business in Siloam Springs, and that Chesney sought to defend his action in so doing by falsely claiming that plaintiff Griffin had previously breached the contract. There was a prayer that Chesney be enjoined from continuing in the business of writing fire insurance in the city of Siloam Springs.
Chesney filed an answer admitting the execution of the contract, and admitted that he had reentered the fire insurance business, but he alleged that plaintiff had first breached the contract in several respects, and his obligation under the contract to stay out of the insurance business had thereby been annulled.
By way of cross-complaint, the defendant Chesney alleged that Griffin had failed to properly account to him for the commissions he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nakdimen v. Baker
...without merit. It is settled that a party who breaches his contract can not insist upon performance by the other party. Griffin v. Chesney, 168 Ark. 240, 269 S.W. 582; DeLukie v. American Petroleum Co., 170 Ark. 453, 280 S.W. 669, 673; Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Olive, 180 Ark. 339, 21 S. W.2......
- Shofner v. Dowell
-
Abel of Ark., Inc. v. Richards
...are exceptions to this general rule growing out of the nature of the thing to be done and the conduct of the parties.' In Griffin v. Chesney, 168 Ark. 240, 269 S.W. 582, we said, 'There is more uncertainty about who committed the first breach, and this appears to be the principal question o......
-
Delukie v. American Petroleum Company
... ... Winchester, 98 Ark. 160 at 160-165, 135 S.W. 860 ... As is ... said by us in the latest case on the subject, ... Griffin v. Chesney, 168 Ark. 240, 243, 269 ... S.W. 582: "A party is not entitled to enjoin the breach ... of a contract by another, unless he himself has ... ...