Central Supply Co. v. Wren

3 Citing cases

  1. American Underwriters v. Shook

    449 S.W.2d 402 (Ark. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    In other words, pleadings are liberally construed and every reasonable inference and intendment are indulged in favor of the pleader. James v. Loyd, 196 Ark. 568, 118 S.W.2d 284 (1938); Central Supply Co. v. Wren, 198 Ark. 1090, 133 S.W.2d 632 (1939); Dillinger v. Pickens, 200 Ark. 218, 138 S.W.2d 388 (1940); Shopfner v. Clark, 246 Ark. 70, 436 S.W.2d 475 (1969). In the case at bar we are of the view that an allegation that the settlement was rejected through negligence or bad faith is essential to the cause of action.

  2. Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co.

    229 Ark. 111 (Ark. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    Also, under our system, we must construe pleadings liberally and give them every reasonable intendment. Mason v. Gates, 90 Ark. 241, 119 S.W. 70: James v. Lloyd, 196 Ark. 568, 118 S.W.2d 264 Central Supply Company, v. Wren, 198 Ark. 1090, 133 S.W.2d 632, and; Neal v. Parker, 200 Ark. 10, 139 S.W.2d 41. Therefore, when we take both of appellee's pleadings, and considering them in accordance with principles above stated, we think all the appellants were aware of the fact that appellee was attempting to hold them liable for the lumber it had sold. It is of no avail to appellants that the statement was made out to `Stroud Mills" when it now appears that the correct name is "Stroud Mill Co. Inc.

  3. Searcy Wholesale Grocer Company v. Baltz

    192 S.W.2d 111 (Ark. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    Section 2132 of Pope's Digest. See, also, 1458 of the Digest, providing that "no variance between the allegations in the pleading and the proof is to be deemed to be material, unless it has actually misled the adverse party to his prejudice — ." As we said in Central Supply Co. v. Wren, 198 Ark. 1090, 133 S.W.2d 632, "Here there can be and is, no question, as to the intention to sue the Ritz Theater, whose correct name is Ritz Theater, Inc. Service upon its agent designated for that purpose is conclusive evidence of that fact, and it was, in our opinion, error to dismiss the complaint." The service of summons upon appellant was had, as shown by the sheriff, "by delivering a copy and stating the substance to E. N. Rand, for the Wholesale Grocer Company, a corporation.