Long v. Chas. T. Abeles & Co.

91 S.W. 29, 77 Ark. 150, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 178
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 18, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 91 S.W. 29 (Long v. Chas. T. Abeles & Co.) 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
Long v. Chas. T. Abeles & Co., 91 S.W. 29, 77 Ark. 150, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 178 (Ark. 1905).

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) As the questions are mainly of fact, we will not set out and discuss the evidence in detail.

The proof shows that appellee delayed an unreasonable time after the execution of the contract to furnish the materials for the completion of appellant’s building. But, according to the rule announced in Hooks Smelting Co. v. Planters’ Compress Co., 72 Ark. 275, and the facts of this record, appellee is not liable for special damages for injury to appellant’s building during the delay, nor for the amount paid for labor. The measure of appellant’s damage, under the proof, is the rental value of the building during the time appellant was deprived of the úse of it by reason of the delay in its completion caused by the failure of appellee to furnish the materials within a reasonable time fox the execution of the contract. Hooks Smelting Co. v. Planters’ Compress Co., supra. If no time was specified, a reasonable time was contemplated, in the course of appellee’s business, for it to perform its contract. Liston v. Chapman & Dewey Land Co., ante p. 116.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that it delayed at least a month and a half beyond a reasonable time. The evidence showed that the rental value of the completed building during this time would have been $125 per month. Appellant therefore was entitled to have appellee’s claim against him reduced to the extent of $187-.50. The decree of the court will be modified' in this’ respect, and as thus modified affirmed. The appellee will pay the cost of this appeal.

McCulloch, J., disqualified.

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

Related

Cinnamon Valley Resort v. EMAC Enterprises, Inc.
202 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2005)
Lamkins v. International Harvester Co.
182 S.W.2d 203 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Stubblefield v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
98 P.2d 14 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1940)
J. B. Colt Co. v. Kimball
190 N.C. 169 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Colt v. . Kimball
129 S.E. 406 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Friedman v. Schleuter
151 S.W. 696 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Wait v. Stanton
147 S.W. 446 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Leifer Manufacturing Co. v. Gross
124 S.W. 1039 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.W. 29, 77 Ark. 150, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-chas-t-abeles-co-ark-1905.