J. F. Hartin Commission Co. v. Pelt
This text of 88 S.W. 929 (J. F. Hartin Commission Co. v. Pelt) 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.
Opinions
Appellant assigns error committed by the court in modifying the first instruction asked in its behalf and in giving over its objection several instructions asked by the defendant. The bill of exceptions recites that the court modified instruction numbered 1, asked by the plaintiff, and gave instructions numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 asked by defendant, to which the plaintiff excepted; but the instructions are neither copied nor called for in the bill of exceptions, and cannot therefore, be noticed, even though there is found in other parts of the transcript what purports to be instructions of the court of corresponding numbers. Newton v. Russian, 74 Ark. 88. We must therefore presume that the jury were properly instructed; and as the testimony was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no other error of the court is pointed out, the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
88 S.W. 929, 76 Ark. 177, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-f-hartin-commission-co-v-pelt-ark-1905.