Field v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court in chancery. John M. Elliott, Judge. Appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The plaintiff alleges the loss of the notes, but that they were still due and unpaid; this was denied by defendant. Upon this state of facts the onus was'on defendant to show payment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court in chancery. John M. Elliott, Judge. Appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The plaintiff alleges the loss of the notes, but that they were still due and unpaid; this was denied by defendant. Upon this state of facts the onus was'on defendant to show payment. Where loss is alleged and non-payment affirmed, the defendant when she pleads payment, must so show, or fail. 29 Ark., 74; 21 W. Va., 183; 55 Vt., 352. Plaintiff alleged that the note was lost—this was denied— and thus it became a…
1Per curiam
It was necessary for the appellant either to produce the note or to account for it, in order to show that he was entitled to collect it. The allegation that it was lost was material. Norris v. Kellogg, 7 Ark., 118. That allegation was denied by the answer, it was not proved upon the trial, and the note was not produced. If there were no other reason for dismissing the complaint, that would be .sufficient.
Affirm.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ward v. MunsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Reynolds v. MortonWyoming Supreme Court · 1913
- Caffey v. AllisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Steinfeld v. BolenArizona Supreme Court · 1915