McFall v. First National Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; The court erred in its instructions to the jury. They should have been instructed that plaintiffs were entitled to “substantial” damages and that a mistake of the bank in dishonoring the checks would not excuse it from liability. 5 Cyc. 535; Ann. Cases, 1913, A. 999; 7 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; The court erred in its instructions to the jury. They should have been instructed that plaintiffs were entitled to “substantial” damages and that a mistake of the bank in dishonoring the checks would not excuse it from liability. 5 Cyc. 535; Ann. Cases, 1913, A. 999; 7 Am. Cases 818; 10 Id. 897; 121 Pac. 939; 67 N. E. 655; 5 R. C. L. 550. If the depositor is a merchant or trader, “substantial” damages will be presumed without proof. 5 R. C. L. 550 and cases cited; Ann. Cases, 1913, A. 1002. See also 121 Pac. 939; 5 R. C. L. 549,…
1DissentMcCULLOCH, C. J.
The first and readiest answer to the contention that prejudicial error was committed by the court’s refusal to charge the jury as to the right of appellants to recover substantial damages is that the jury’s verdict awarded substantial damages, and no prejudice resulted even though the ruling of the court was incorrect. An award of fifty dollars is not an award of nominal damages. That sum is a substantial one, and is, in this instance, apparently adequate according to the evidence adduced. At any rate, the evidence in the record is such that we cannot say that the jury erred in the assessment…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blankenship v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Kable v. CareySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- L. B. Price Mercantile Co. v. CuillaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Duckworth v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. OberCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.