Anderson v. Wainwright

53 S.W. 566, 67 Ark. 62, 1899 Ark. LEXIS 8
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 28, 1899·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The contract was in writing, and could not be changed or added to by parol evidence. The demurrer to the answer was properly sustained.

If it is shown that there was a valid consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement not to enforce her lien, she could only be held bound to refrain from doing so for a reasonble length of time. She did refrain from suit to enforce her lien for four years. We think that this was as much as could be required of her. A party cannot be held to have precluded himself from the exercise of the right to resort to the courts to protect and enforce a legal right. Chadwick v. Hopkins, 62 Am. St. Rep. 38; Hershy v. Clark, 35 Ark. 17; Brooks v. Cooper, 35 Am. St. Rep. 793.

The judgment is affirmed.

Battle, J., did not participate in the determination of this cause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anderson v. Wainwright, 53 S.W. 566, 67 Ark. 62, 1899 Ark. LEXIS 8 (Ark. 1899).

53 S.W. 566 (Anderson v. Wainwright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lemm v. Sparks
321 S.W.2d 388 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1959)
Holt v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
52 F.2d 1068 (Fourth Circuit, 1931)
Cox v. Smith
138 S.W. 978 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Webster
137 S.W. 1103 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Bradley Gin Co. v. J. L. Means Machinery Co.
126 S.W. 81 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Griggs v. School District No. 70
112 S.W. 215 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1908)