Henry v. Allen

• Decision Date: 29 April 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 201
• Parties: HENRY <I>v.</I> ALLEN and others.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

4 S.W. 201

HENRYv.

ALLEN and others.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 29, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Miller county.

U. M. & G. B. Rose, for appellant. Scott & Jones, for appellees.

SAUNDERS, Special Judge.

H. J. Allen & Bros. sued Frank M. Henry, in the Miller circuit court, for an alleged balance due on a contract for the erection of a block of brick buildings in Queen City, Texas. The complaint set out the contract and cause of action as resting in parol. The defendant answered, denying the contract as stated by plaintiffs, and averred that he was jointly interested in the contract to build the houses with Allen Bros., and that the contract, though made in the name of Allen Bros., was for his benefit, as one of the parties to perform the work, though one of the houses was to be erected for him. Whatever of truth there may be in the contention of the appellant as to this anomalous position occupied by him, the facts were all fairly submitted to the jury under proper instructions from the court, and this court, under well-established principles, will not disturb the conclusions of the jury. Hill v. Fellows, 25 Ark. 11; Carroll v. Bowler, 40 Ark. 168.

During the progress of the trial, what appears to have been an unexecuted written contract between the plaintiffs, Allen & Bros., and the parties interested in the buildings as owners, purporting to set out the terms and conditions of the contract, was offered in evidence by the appellees. The appellant objected, and over his objections the court permitted the introduction of this instrument as evidence. This objection and exception of the appellant was carried into the motion for new trial, and is urged before this court as ground for reversal of the judgment. It was admitted on trial that this contract was written by the appellant himself, and his name appears in the body of the instrument as one of the parties contracting to pay Allen & Bros. for the buildings. It was signed by Allen & Bros., and also by two of the parties contracting to have said work performed, but not signed by the appellant otherwise than the signature or name in the body of the instrument, and there was no proof as to its complete execution by delivery and acceptance of the parties. The question at issue was whether the appellant, Henry, had contracted jointly with others to pay the appellees, Allen & Bros., for the buildings erected as stated in the complaint, or whether he was one of the parties contracting to do...