Daniel v. St. Louis National Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court. The transfer of the note to the appellee bank by the President of the Mammoth Springs Bank was invalid, and hence the latter was still the legal owner of the paper. 14 Mass. 178; 18 W. Ya. 212, 228; 1 Boone, Bankg. § 101; 7 Ala. 273; 1 Cook,Oorp. 716; 4 Th.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court. The transfer of the note to the appellee bank by the President of the Mammoth Springs Bank was invalid, and hence the latter was still the legal owner of the paper. 14 Mass. 178; 18 W. Ya. 212, 228; 1 Boone, Bankg. § 101; 7 Ala. 273; 1 Cook,Oorp. 716; 4 Th. Corp. §§ 44-46; 62 Ark.33; 34 S. W. 89. Until it is shown that some officer or agent of the bank was duly authorized to make such transactions, the presumption is that it was the duty of the board of directors, and that the only duty of the president was to preside at the meetings. 22 Gratt. 51; 108 U. S.…
1Dissent
Bunn, C. J.,
(dissenting.) The judgment of the court below is reversed by the majority of this court, because that court erred in refusing to give the following instruction, to-wit:
“The court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that the Bank of Mammoth Springs, and the plaintiff, St. Louis National Bank, were correspondents, and that on the 21st of July, 1897, the defendant had in the hands of the Bank of Mammoth Springs six hundred dollars, with instructions for that amount to be paid on che note against him held by the plaintiff, and that you further find that at the same…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Henry v. ConleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Jenkins v. ShinnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. WigginsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898