Pinson v. Cobb
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1. Appellant paid a good” and valid consideration for the note. One who takes a negotiable instrument in payment of a past due obligation of the payee, is an innocent purchaser for value. 1 Daniels, Neg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1. Appellant paid a good” and valid consideration for the note. One who takes a negotiable instrument in payment of a past due obligation of the payee, is an innocent purchaser for value. 1 Daniels, Neg. Inst., 636; 13 Ark. 150. 2. Threats of a civil suit do not constitute coercion. 109 La. 13; 155 Mass. 233; 76 Minn. 257; 71 Fed. 58. 1. Pinson was not an innocent purchaser for value before maturity. 2. The note was without consideration.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant, W. J. Pinson, instituted this action in the circuit court of Pulaski County against appellees, J. D. Cobb, Ben Cox, W. N. Morris and Gr. W. Fair, to recover the amount of a promissory note in the sum of $5,000 executed by appellees to one S. R. Morgan and assigned to appellant by Morgan for a valuable consideration.
Appellees answered, admitted that they executed the note in suit, but alleged that Morgan obtained it from them by fraud and coercion, and that appellant was not an innocent purchaser without notice of the facts upon which the defense against payment is based. It is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Conqueror Trust Co. v. SimmonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- McCollum v. GraberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Conqueror Trust Co. v. Reves Drug Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- McCollum v. GraberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944