Legal Opinion

Joy Rice Milling Company v. Brown

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 12, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The notes signed by these parties were the final contract between the owners of the rice and the mill company. It is the only contract that is binding between the appellant and the appellees. 63 U.S. 22;64 U.S. 23; 96 U.S. 544; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 275; 104 Ark. 476; 83 Ark. 283; 125 Ark. 502. There is no merit in appellees' contention that, since the notes were made payable on demand, and appellant failed to make demand for their payment before it sold the rice pledged to secure the same, appellant was thereby precluded from enforcing the obligations or receiving benefits provided by the…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Central Trust Co. of Ill. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Insurance Co. v. MowrySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. First Nat. Bank of Washington v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  4. First Nat. Bank of Jersey City v. . LeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  5. National Commercial Bank v. Miller & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1884

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stuttgart Rice Mill Co. v. LockridgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  2. Marks v. F. G. Barton Cotton CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API