Matlock v. Purefoy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ouachita county. It was not necessary to allege that the note was payable to bearer, nor to state the words “value received” in the declaration — nor the place of its execution. Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 51; 2 Arch. N. P. 128. That the note could be given in evidence under the issue on the second count, see Jordan vs. Ford & Dixon, 2 Eng. 416; 2 Arch.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ouachita county. It was not necessary to allege that the note was payable to bearer, nor to state the words “value received” in the declaration — nor the place of its execution. Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 51; 2 Arch. N. P. 128. That the note could be given in evidence under the issue on the second count, see Jordan vs. Ford & Dixon, 2 Eng. 416; 2 Arch. N. P. 128; Pierce vs. Crafts, 12 J. R. 90. The plea was not verified by affidavit, and, therefore, the note could be given in evidence under the plea. Bank vs. Kirby et al. 4 Eng. 353; Dig. 812, secs. 104, 105.
1Opinion of the Court
Mi’. Justice Scott
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The action was assumpsit on a promisory note. There was a special count on the note bearing ten per cent, interest, setting it out according to its legal effect, and a count on an account stated, alleging a promise to pay the amount named with ten per cent, interest. It was not alleged that the promise to pay this last named interest was in writing.
There was a demurrer assigning — 1. Because the note was not described as payable to John Matlock or hearer — 2d. Was not described as given for 'value received — 3d. Was not described as made at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Payne v. Britton'sSupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. HullSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Hamner v. StarlingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932