{ "id": 1385576, "name": "Mitchell v. Williams", "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. Williams", "decision_date": "1924-01-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "36", "last_page": "39", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 Ark. 36" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "74 Ark. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722382 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Fed. 983", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "150 Ark. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1367897 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/150/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 App. Div. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 2314210 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ad/23/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ark. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "159 Ark. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721745 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/159/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ark. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1570037 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/136/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575086 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0030-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 317, "char_count": 5152, "ocr_confidence": 0.479, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.43595591866552835 }, "sha256": "b22e8dba92daaf8b55e364092c4e45ba130019feeda15aa2f585a09c8d631906", "simhash": "1:e683c69029066c8b", "word_count": 885 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:29.396763+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Mitchell v. Williams." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nThis suit was brought by the appellant lumber company against A. R. Williams, contractor, and Ozette Wright, surety on the contractor\u2019s bond, for a bill of material used by him in .the construction of a school building for a rural special school district in Crawford -County. The account of the lumber company was practically unquestioned, the main issue being upon the counterclaim of the defendant Williams for damages growing out of alleged delays in furnishing the material sued for.\nThe jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $249.19, and found also that the surety was not liable for that amount, and the plaintiff has appealed.\nThe principal claim of the defendant Williams for an offset against the plaintiff\u2019s account is that the plaintiff agreed and undertook to furnish him the material known as the \u201cmill-work\u201d to be used in the construction of the school building, and that the -delay in so doing was responsible for the damages claimed by Williams. A delay in delivering shingles was also alleged as a cause of' damage. The lumber company denied that it had agreed to furnish the mill-work, but had merely ordered it for Williams from another -dealer; and -denied that there was any delay causing damages in the delivery of the shingles.\nThese questions of fact were submitted to the jury, and are concluded by the verdict, and, without setting out the testimony, it suffices to say that it was legally sufficient to support a finding either way, as it was conflicting.\nAn objection is urged to an instruction numbered 1, which substantially -submitted the issues, on the ground that the jury might have interpreted the instruction to permit either Williams or his men to take credit for the delay. We think, however, the instruction was not open to the objection made. The laborers were not parties to the suit, and we do not understand the instruction, when fairly interpreted, to permit a double recovery, or to permit the laborers to recover at all.\nThe bond sued on was executed in compliance with \u00a7 6913, C. & M. Digest, and -the defense of the surety was that suit had not been brought within six months after the completion of the building, -as required by \u00a7 6914, C. & M. Digest.\nThere was a question as to the time of the completion of the building, and this question of fact was -submitted to the jury, and is concluded by the verdict in favor of the surety, as there wa-s testimony legally sufficient to support the finding that the suit was not brought until more than six months had expired after the -completion of the building.\nIt is also insisted, for the reversal -of the judgment, that the account sued on had become an account .stated. It is insisted that this issue was not raised by the pleadings in apt time against the defendant Williams, and was not raised at all against his surety. We do not decide that question, however, as, in our opinion, the testimony did not warrant the submission of the question whether the account sued on had become an account stated. The account rendered covered items furnished during the current month, and took no account whatever of the credits claimed by way of damages; indeed, isuch credit has at all times been, and is now, denied. There were items of damage for which Williams could not claim credit until he had settled with the school district, among which was the claim of the district for liquidated damages for delay in completing -the building beyond the contract period.\nThe ease appears to have been properly submitted to the jury, and the testimony is sufficient to support the verdict, so the judgment must be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. L. Matlock, for appellant.", "Holland & Holland, for appellee Williams, and Warner, Hardin & Warner, for appellee Wright." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mitchell v. Williams.\nOpinion delivered January 14, 1924.\n1. Appeal and error \u2014 conclusiveness of verdict. \u2014 Questions of fact are conclusively determined by the jury where there was sufficient evidence to support their finding.\n2. Account stated \u2014 evidence.\u2014Evidence that an account rendered by a materialman to a building contractor covered only items furnished during the current month, and allowed no credits for damages caused by delay, and where there were items of damage that could not then have been determined, held to warrant refusal to submit the issue whether the account sued on was an account stated.\nAppeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Joht% Brissolara, Judge;\naffirmed.\nE. L. Matlock, for appellant.\nHolland & Holland, for appellee Williams, and Warner, Hardin & Warner, for appellee Wright.\nThe evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict, and this court will not disturb it. 133 Ark. 30; .136 Ark. 310; l\u00e1\u00e1 .Ark. 641; 148 Ark. 654. The surety was released by failure to bring suit within six months after completion of the building. C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 6913; Davis v. Chrisp, 159 Ark. 335. An account stated was not pleaded by the plaintiff either in the original complaint, the amended complaint, or in the reply to the defendant\u2019s answer. It is not available here. 137 Ark. 565. It is not available, under the facts in this case, even had it been pleaded. 23 App. Div. 498; 1 C. J., \u00a7 278; Id., \u00a7 279; 1 C.'J., \u00a7\u00a7 281, 288, 290, 292; 150 Ark. 197, 203; 73 Fed. 983; 74 Ark. 468." }, "file_name": "0036-01", "first_page_order": 60, "last_page_order": 63 }