Swift v. Lovegrove
| Decision Date | 14 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3065,5-3065 |
| Citation | 237 Ark. 43,371 S.W.2d 129 |
| Parties | Robert M. SWIFT, Appellant, v. Leroy LOVEGROVE, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John G. Moore, Morrilton, for appellant.
Gordon & Gordon, Morrilton, for appellee.
Appellant, Robert M. Swift, owned 190 acres of land on which he operated a dairy. On March 4, 1960 he and appellee, Leroy Lovegrove, Jr., entered into a written agreement (hereafter referred to as a contract) wherein appellant purported to sell and appellee purported to purchase the land, including the dairy cows and equipment. The contract, not drawn by an attorney, is crude and indefinite in its terms.
The parties however agree as to the following: (a) The price of the land was $16,500 and the price of the cows and equipment was $12,500; (b) appellee made a down payment of $2000 and then made four other payments of $200 each; (c) there was no definite agreement as to when the balance would be paid, but appellee was to get credit for one-half of the profits from the operation of the dairy to be applied on the balance of the purchase price; and, (d) appellee was to pay one-half of the expenses incident to the dairy operation. It is not disputed that the parties operated under this arrangement for only three or four months after which time it was terminated. The cause and circumstance of such termination are the issues in this litigation.
The contention of appellee (as set out in his complaint filed in the circuit court) is (a) that an essential part of the contract and agreement was for appellant to keep a record of the dairy profits and to give him (appellee) credit each month on the purchase price but that appellant failed and refused to do so, and (b) that on July 1, 1960 it was mutually agreed to rescind the entire contract and for appellant to refund to appellee the sum of $2800. On the other hand, it is the contention of appellant that he made no such agreement, that appellee refused to carry out his part of the contract, and therefore he was due the balance of the purchase price.
The above conflicting contentions were presented to the trial judge, sitting as a jury. After hearing the testimony of both parties and their wives, the trial court, after making extensive findings of fact and law, found the issues in favor of appellee and rendered judgment in his favor for $2800. Among other things the court found appellee had advanced $2800 and that there was an agreement to rescind the contract. The court further found that the parties had entered into a partnership operation or joint advanture as to the dairy operation, and that 'the contract as drawn is more in the nature of a memorandum of mutual undertakings of the parties, and without oral interpretation and explanation, is ambiguous.'
The judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. It is not contended by appellant that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Gilbert
...each case the Court held that when the term used is ambiguous a factual question for the jury is presented. Again, in Swift v. Lovegrove, 237 Ark. 43, 371 S.W.2d 129 (1963), the Court ruled that "it is equally well settled that an ambiguous contract is subject to interpretation and its mean......
-
Manhattan Factoring Corp. v. Orsburn
...jury. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hyde, 232 Ark. 1020, 342 S.W.2d 295; Bailey v. Sutton, 208 Ark. 184, 185 S.W.2d 276; Swift v. Lovegrove, 237 Ark. 43, 371 S.W.2d 129; Pate v. Goyne, 212 Ark. 51, 204 S.W.2d 900; Triska v. Savage, 219 Ark. 80, 239 S.W.2d The appellant argues that the terms of......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Owen
...Products Co. v. Tankersley, 185 Ark. 965, 50 S.W.2d 582. Failure to obtain the evidence by deposition was considered in Swift v. Lovegrove, 237 Ark. 43, 371 S.W.2d 129. Failure to obtain evidence which could have been procured through discovery depositions, interrogatories, or further inter......
-
Leonard v. Downing, 5--4813
...Town of Aliceville, Ala., 170 Ark. 195, 279 S.W. 379 (1926); Morgan v. Shackleford, 174 Ark. 337, 295 S.W. 46 (1927); Swift v. Lovegrove, 237 Ark. 43, 371 S.W.2d 129 (1963); 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 387. It is true, as urged by appellant, that time, place and amount are usually considered ind......