May & Ellis Co. v. Farmers Union Mercantile Co.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 165 |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 490,120 Ark. 316 |
| Parties | MAY & ELLIS COMPANY v. FARMERS UNION MERCANTILE COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
D. L King, for appellant.
1. It was error to direct a verdict. The cause should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions as to the unreasonable delay in making objections.
No brief filed for appellee.
This is an action instituted in the circuit court of Lafayette County by appellant, a Louisiana corporation, against appellee, a domestic corporation engaged in mercantile business at Stamps, Arkansas, to recover a balance of $ 130.34 alleged to be due on an open account for goods and merchandise sold and shipped from appellant's place of business in the city of New Orleans. Appellee, in its answer admitted that it purchased a bill of goods from appellant and received a shipment and the invoice, but that on opening the boxes of goods there were found to be shortages of items aggregating the sum of $ 130.34, according to the invoice price, and that appellee paid the balance of the bill but refused to pay for the items found to be short. There was a trial of the case before a jury, but the court gave a peremptory instruction in appellee's favor.
An itemized, verified account was exhibited with the complaint and shows a balance of the amount claimed by appellant. The manager of appellee corporation testified in substance that he purchased the bill of goods from appellant and that the same was shipped out from New Orleans on December 30, 1913, and receive by appellee at its place of business in Stamps on January 6, the invoice being mailed out at the same time and received by appellee in due course of mail. He testified that on account of certain changes in the business of appellee the goods were not opened until about a month after their receipt, and that then the shortages were discovered and later reported to appellant when the remainder of the bill was paid. In other words, his testimony shows that the goods were received on January 6, 1914, but not opened until about a month from that date, and that on March 10, 1914, the alleged shortages were first reported to appellant. The letter from appellee to appellant was introduced in evidence, giving notice of the alleged shortages. The letter is dated March 10, 1914, and states that the boxes of goods were received in good order, but when opened up, about a month after receipt, items aggregating in price the sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Hicks
...instruction to find that the account had become an account stated, as the matter should have been left to the jury. See 80 Ark. 469; 120 Ark. 316; Vol. 1 C. J. p. 680, § also p. 691 § 276, and p. 692 § 277. During the time that appellee claims his various fees were accruing, without making ......
-
Hawkins v. Delta Spindle of Blytheville, Inc.
...raise a jury question. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Choctaw Merc. Co., 80 Ark. 438, 97 S.W. 284. See, also, May & Ellis Co. v. Farmers' Union Merc. Co., 120 Ark. 316, 178 S.W. 490. Appellee also argues that the question of reasonableness of the amount charges was never placed in issue. We fin......
- Cooksey v. Hartzell
- May & Ellis Co. v. Farmers Union Mercantile Co.