Worthington v. Curd & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Circuit Coxwt of Chicot County. Tbe Hon. SiieltoN Watson, Circuit Judge, presiding. Tbe instrument sued on in this case, was not assignable at common law. Its negotiability depends wholly on our statute of assignments.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Coxwt of Chicot County. Tbe Hon. SiieltoN Watson, Circuit Judge, presiding. Tbe instrument sued on in this case, was not assignable at common law. Its negotiability depends wholly on our statute of assignments. Ch. 15, Reto. 8tat. 161. We think tbe statute was not designed at all to embrace com-mercialpaper: but ifit was designed to embrace such paper, and confirm its negotiability as established by tbe law merchant, we deny that tbe entire law merchant should be put in force, and applied to non-commercial paper, made negotiable by tbe statute, in all points on…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr; Justice Soott
delivered the opinion of the Court,
This was an action of covenant, instituted, in the Chicot Circuit Court, by the survivors of the firm of E. Curd & Co. It was upon a covenant of Worthington to Abner Johnson, dated the 1st of February, 1840, payable the 15th January, 1850, for two hundred and fity bales of cotton, with provisions as to the quality of the cotton and weight of the bales.
It was alleged that Johnson, on the-7th of January, 1845, endorsed this covenant, in blank, to the firm of E. Curd & Co., and then delivered it to them; that the covenant and the endorsement…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Taylor v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Owen v. LavineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- Koehne v. HarveyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
- Worthington v. Curd & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
- Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906