Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co.

25 S.W. 503, 58 Ark. 487, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 116
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 17, 1894·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Wood, J.,

1. Person in •whose name contract is made may sue. (after stating- the facts.) The court erred in giving- the fourth instruction. The contract was made with appellant, as evidenced by the receipt to him, and he had the right to sue. Mansf. Dig. sec. 4936 ; Pomeroy, Rem. & Remed. Rights, sec. 223.

2. When express company liable for delay. In view of further proceedings, it is proper to say that the instruction given by the court upon its own motion correctly declared the law applicable to the facts, and instructions 1, 2 and 3 should not have been given.

Por the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co., 25 S.W. 503, 58 Ark. 487, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 116 (Ark. 1894).

25 S.W. 503 (Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Railway Express Company v. Cole
37 S.W.2d 699 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Mixon-McClicntock Co.
154 S.W. 205 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Carter v. Southern Railway Co.
50 L.R.A. 354 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)