Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thompson v. AAA Lumber Co.
Citations: 245 Ark. 518; 432 S.W.2d 873; 1968 Ark. LEXIS 1234Docket: 4702
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 28, 1968; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Myrtle Thompson appeals a judgment favoring AAA Lumber Company concerning a running account. She claims entitlement to a directed verdict, asserts that the trial court improperly commented on evidence, and alleges that cumulative erroneous rulings prejudiced her defense. Thompson had been a long-time customer of the lumber company, using her account for repairs on rental properties, sometimes authorizing tenants to charge expenses. Testimony from J.E. Hannah, a company employee, detailed the record-keeping process for credits and charges, noting that some charges were made by Thompson's adopted brother and others without clear authorization from Thompson. The ledger showed a balance increase from $294.57 to $331.34 during the period in question. Thompson testified about her practice of accompanying workers to obtain materials and acknowledged making sporadic payments without recalling specific dates. The court found that it properly refused a directed verdict based on the evidence presented. Thompson's claims regarding the court's comments were dismissed as they had not been raised during the trial. The court also ruled against her on various claims of trial court error, including the exclusion of inquiries about her brother's reputation for truthfulness, deeming this point meritless due to lack of a proffered answer from the witness. Additionally, the court found no merit in Thompson’s claim that Hannah's testimony was unresponsive. The appellant contends that the trial court improperly allowed Mr. Hannah to infer agency by showing that Miss Thompson terminated that agency, referencing her prior instruction to make no further charges to her account, which Mr. Hannah complied with. The court finds this argument without merit, as Mr. Hannah had previously clarified that Miss Thompson had authorized charges to her account. The appellant also argues that the trial court wrongly permitted cross-examination regarding Miss Thompson's payment of her brother's bills; however, the court sees no abuse of discretion in this inquiry. Additionally, the appellant challenges a $98.31 item from a paint store operated by the lumber company, which was acknowledged as accruing at a separate location. The paint store's balances were improperly transferred to the lumber company ledger, as this entry was handwritten rather than made in the regular course of business and not recorded within a reasonable timeframe as required by Arkansas law. Therefore, this amount does not qualify as a business record. The trial court's judgment is modified to reduce the amount by $98.31, resulting in a total of $233.03, which is affirmed along with interest from the date of judgment.