Leftwich v. Cash Lumber Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Leftwich v. Cash Lumber Company

217 S.W.2d 357, 214 Ark. 586, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 606

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

Docket4-8740

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 S.W.2d 357 (Leftwich v. Cash Lumber Company) 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

Leftwich v. Cash Lumber Company, 217 S.W.2d 357, 214 Ark. 586, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 606 (Ark. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, ' J.

Appellee brought this action to establish a materialman’s lien for $103.86, the defense being that part of the lumber was never delivered and part was rejected as defective. One of appellee’s officers testified to the delivery and acceptance of the material, while appellant gave his version of the transaction. Three carpenters who worked on appellant’s house were called to corroborate his evidence, but they knew only that some lumber had been rejected. They were unable to say that the material refused had been supplied by appellee, while appellant admitted buying lumber from several other dealers. Thus the question narrowed down to one of credibility as between the uncorroborated testimony of the litigants. In this situation we are guided by the chancellor’s conclusion. Souter v. Witt, 87 Ark. 593, 113 S. W. 800, 128 Am. St. Rep. 40. Affirmed.

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

George Rose Smith, ' J.

Appellee brought this action to establish a materialman’s lien for $103.86, the defense being that part of the lumber was never delivered and part was rejected as defective. One of appellee’s officers testified to the delivery and acceptance of the material, while appellant gave his version of the transaction. Three carpenters who worked on appellant’s house were called to corroborate his evidence, but they knew only that some lumber had been rejected. They were unable to say that the material refused had been supplied by appellee, while appellant admitted buying lumber from several other dealers. Thus the question narrowed down to one of credibility as between the uncorroborated testimony of the litigants. In this situation we are guided by the chancellor’s conclusion. Souter v. Witt, 87 Ark. 593, 113 S. W. 800, 128 Am. St. Rep. 40. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 S.W.2d 357, 214 Ark. 586, 1949 Ark. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leftwich-v-cash-lumber-company-ark-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack