Beebe v. Real Estate Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Debt, tried in Pulaski Circuit Court, in March, 1841, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the Circuit Judges. The Real Estate Bank sued Roswell Beebe and others, on a note executed by them, and made no profert of the note. The defendants demurred, for want of profert, and the demurrer being overruled, judgment went for the debt, and interest at ten per centum per annum, from the maturity of the note until it should be paid. The defendants sued their writ of error.
Read the full summary
Debt, tried in Pulaski Circuit Court, in March, 1841, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the Circuit Judges. The Real Estate Bank sued Roswell Beebe and others, on a note executed by them, and made no profert of the note. The defendants demurred, for want of profert, and the demurrer being overruled, judgment went for the debt, and interest at ten per centum per annum, from the maturity of the note until it should be paid. The defendants sued their writ of error. By the Revised Statutes, page 627, sec. 60, 61, all demurrers are required to be special. The omission of profert was cause…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dickinson, J.
At common law, a party never was required to make profert of a promissory note: the reason was, that it, did not constitute the foundation of the action. It was only evidence of the debt, and its execution was required to be proved upon the trial. Profert was given upon sealed instruments, because they constituted the gist of the action, and it was required to enable the defendant to plead knowingly. ■ Oyer was granted upon profert being made; and, upon the making ofprofert, the party could then plead a special or general plea of non est fact,um, or set up any other…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McKay v. Capital Resources Co. Ltd.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- Clark v. ShockleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Chaviers v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974