Boyce v. Goodwin
This text of 250 S.W. 523 (Boyce v. Goodwin) 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.
Opinion
(after stating the facts). The judgment of the chancery court was correct. As stated in Amis v. Conner, 43 Ark. 337, he who offers a reward has the right to prescribe any terms he may see fit, and these terms must be complied with before any contract arises between him and the claimant.
The plaintiff seeks to reverse the judgment upon the ground that he was entitled to a reward of $35 for each of the three persons convicted. The record shows that the three persons were convicted of cutting the same tree at the same time. The reward was for information resulting in the arrest and conviction of any one cutting trees on the land of Goodwin. The word, “any one,” in the sense it was used, included all persons participating in the same act. The word frequently extends to an indefinite number of persons included in the same transaction. Here the three persons were engaged in cutting the same tree at the same time, and we think, when the reward is construed as an entirety, the word “any one” was intended to include all who might participate in the same act of trespass.
The decree is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
250 S.W. 523, 158 Ark. 475, 1923 Ark. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-goodwin-ark-1923.