Austin v. Norris

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Austin v. Norris

141 S.W. 1179, 101 Ark. 180, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 443

DecidedDecember 4, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.W. 1179 (Austin v. Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Norris, 141 S.W. 1179, 101 Ark. 180, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 443 (Ark. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). The court properly eliminated from this case all questions except as to whether or not the services had been rendered by appellee to appellant as alleged in appellee’s complaint, and as to whether or not appellee had perpetrated a fraud upon appellant in the negotiations. Drennen was not made, nor was he asked to be made, a party to the proceedings. It was not proper to raise the issue of partnership between him and appellee in this suit. The court did not err, therefore, in sustaining the demurrer to that portion of appellant’s answer and cross bill which set up the partnership between himself and Drennen, nor did the court err in excluding all the testimony and in refusing appellant’s prayer concerning that question.

The issues raised were properly submitted to the jury under the instructions which the court gave on its own motion, and to which there was no objection. There was evidence to sustain the verdict.

The judgment is therefore correct, and is affirmed.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). The court properly eliminated from this case all questions except as to whether or not the services had been rendered by appellee to appellant as alleged in appellee’s complaint, and as to whether or not appellee had perpetrated a fraud upon appellant in the negotiations. Drennen was not made, nor was he asked to be made, a party to the proceedings. It was not proper to raise the issue of partnership between him and appellee in this suit. The court did not err, therefore, in sustaining the demurrer to that portion of appellant’s answer and cross bill which set up the partnership between himself and Drennen, nor did the court err in excluding all the testimony and in refusing appellant’s prayer concerning that question.

The issues raised were properly submitted to the jury under the instructions which the court gave on its own motion, and to which there was no objection. There was evidence to sustain the verdict.

The judgment is therefore correct, and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.W. 1179, 101 Ark. 180, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-norris-ark-1911.