legal or equitable claim in Arkansas

9 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1898–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Spear Mining Co. v. Shinngreen ark · 1910 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1924–1924 1 sentence 1924Therefore it should be applied cautiously, and restricted to cases coming clearly within its compass. ‘There must be, first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and second, some privity between the two— the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him, personally.’ ” The doctrine of this case has been since approved in Dickerson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414 , and Schmidt v. Griffith, 144 Ark. 8 ; see a	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Vrooman v. . Turner green ny · 1877 2 sentences 1922Court of Appeals in Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280 , “There must be, first, an intent by the promisee to- secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two — the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise.” See also Little Rock Ry. & Elec. 1915In the case of Thomas Manufacturing Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , this court quoted with ,approval the rule announced by the court of appeals of New York in Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280 , as follows: “There must be — First, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the .two — the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would .give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” The court also quoted with appro	3	1898–1922
Collins v. Cunningham green arkctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2013Collins v. Cunningham, 71 Ark. 2010Collins v. Cunningham, 71 Ark.App. 297 , 29 S.W.3d 764 (2000).	2	2010–2013
Thomas Manufacturing Co. v. Prather neutral ark · 1898 2 sentences 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai	2	1915–2000
Carolus v. Arkansas Light & Power Co. green ark · 1924 2 sentences 1992Baldwin v. Neal, supra. It has been stated that the third party beneficiary doctrine should be applied cautiously, and is restricted to cases "coming clearly within its compass." Carolus v. Arkansas Power Light Co., 164 Ark. 507 , 512 , 262 S.W. 330 (1924). 1989Therefore it .should be applied cautiously, and restricted to cases coming clearly within its compass. ‘There must be, first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and second, some privity between the two — the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him, personally.’ ” 164 Ark. at 512-13 .	2	1989–1992
Dickinson v. McCoppin green ark · 1915 2 sentences 1924Therefore it should be applied cautiously, and restricted to cases coming clearly within its compass. ‘There must be, first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and second, some privity between the two— the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him, personally.’ ” The doctrine of this case has been since approved in Dickerson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414 , and Schmidt v. Griffith, 144 Ark. 8 ; see a 1922Co. v. McDowell, 101 Ark. 223 -26; Dickinson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414 -18; Ga. State Sav.	2	1922–1924
Hopkins v. Ives green ark · 1978 2 sentences 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai	1	2000–2000
West v. Norcross green ark · 1935 2 sentences 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai 2000Co. v. Prather, 65 Ark. 27 , 44 S.W. 218 (1898), the supreme court held that in order for a stranger to a contract to sue upon it, there must be “first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and, second, some privity between the two; — the promisee and the party to be benefitted, — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him personally.” See also West v. Norcross, 190 Ark. 667 , 80 S.W.2d 67 (1935) (holding sharecroppers not entitled to mai	1	2000–2000
Schmidt v. Griffith neutral ark · 1920 1 sentence 1924Therefore it should be applied cautiously, and restricted to cases coming clearly within its compass. ‘There must be, first, an intent by the promisee to secure some benefit to the third party; and second, some privity between the two— the promisee and the party to be benefited — and some obligation or duty owing from the former to the latter which would give him a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise, or an equivalent from him, personally.’ ” The doctrine of this case has been since approved in Dickerson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414 , and Schmidt v. Griffith, 144 Ark. 8 ; see a	1	1924–1924
Little Rock Railway & Electric Co. v. Dowell green ark · 1911 1 sentence 1922Co. v. McDowell, 101 Ark. 223 -26; Dickinson v. McCoppin, 121 Ark. 414 -18; Ga. State Sav.	1	1922–1922

Where else courts name it

NY 38 (1863–2025) CA 13 (2017–2025) AR 9 (1898–2013) WA 9 (1910–2024) AZ 8 (1888–2024) MI 6 (1933–2023) MN 5 (1911–2008) CO 5 (1966–2003) TX 5 (1915–2020) NE 3 (1894–1902) IL 3 (1906–1930) OH 3 (1870–2026) MD 2 (1973–2004) MS 2 (2009–2010) OK 2 (2017–2017) MO 2 (1882–1902) OR 2 (1898–1919) IN 2 (1891–1900) DE 2 (1919–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check