Gentry Hardware Co. v. Gray

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Gentry Hardware Co. v. Gray

60 S.W.2d 1019, 187 Ark. 534, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 410

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 5, 1933

Docket4-3030

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.W.2d 1019 (Gentry Hardware Co. v. Gray) 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

Gentry Hardware Co. v. Gray, 60 S.W.2d 1019, 187 Ark. 534, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 410 (Ark. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). From the foregoing statement of facts it appears that appellant affirmatively pleaded that appellee had voluntarily surrendered the property in controversy to it in satisfaction of its debt. The testimony on behalf of appellant was amply sufficient to have sustained a verdict in its behalf on this issue, but the trial court refused to submit this issue to the jury under appellant’s requested instruction No. 4, which has been copied in the statement of facts. We think this is reversible error. Appellant’s instruction No. 4 was not covered by any other instruction given by the trial court, and the case must be reversed because of this error.

In view of the fact that this case must be remanded for a new trial, it is proper to express our views in reference to certain testimony offered on the trial of the case in behalf of appellee. This testimony was to the effect that his apple crop had been damaged because appellant had taken his spray rig away from him, and he was thereby deprived of spraying his orchard. This testimony was incompetent and inadmissible on the trial of this case and should not have been introduced.

Other errors are argued in appellant’s brief, but we do not deem them of sufficient importance to discuss in this opinion, and they will probably not occur on a retrial of the case.

Let the judgment be. reversed, and the case remanded.

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

Johnson, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). From the foregoing statement of facts it appears that appellant affirmatively pleaded that appellee had voluntarily surrendered the property in controversy to it in satisfaction of its debt. The testimony on behalf of appellant was amply sufficient to have sustained a verdict in its behalf on this issue, but the trial court refused to submit this issue to the jury under appellant’s requested instruction No. 4, which has been copied in the statement of facts. We think this is reversible error. Appellant’s instruction No. 4 was not covered by any other instruction given by the trial court, and the case must be reversed because of this error.

In view of the fact that this case must be remanded for a new trial, it is proper to express our views in reference to certain testimony offered on the trial of the case in behalf of appellee. This testimony was to the effect that his apple crop had been damaged because appellant had taken his spray rig away from him, and he was thereby deprived of spraying his orchard. This testimony was incompetent and inadmissible on the trial of this case and should not have been introduced.

Other errors are argued in appellant’s brief, but we do not deem them of sufficient importance to discuss in this opinion, and they will probably not occur on a retrial of the case.

Let the judgment be. reversed, and the case remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.W.2d 1019, 187 Ark. 534, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-hardware-co-v-gray-ark-1933.