C. L. Kraft Co. v. Grubbs
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellee instituted this .suit against the appel'lant on a promissory note in the sum of two thousand dollars. ($2,000). The appellant denied that it was indebted to the appellee ; denied that the note .sued on was executed by it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellee instituted this .suit against the appel'lant on a promissory note in the sum of two thousand dollars. ($2,000). The appellant denied that it was indebted to the appellee ; denied that the note .sued on was executed by it. It alleged that the note was drawn by one McCain, without authority, and negotiated and the proceeds used by him without the knowledge of appellant. The facts are substantially as follows: The Kraft company was a corporation engaged in tihe livery business, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). The testimony on behalf of the appellee would have warranted the court in submitting to the jury the issue as to whether or not C. M. McCain, as president and active manager of the appellant, had been in the habit of executing notes in the name of the company in order to carry on the company’s business, and for the benefit of the company, without express authority from the board of directors, 'and also as to whether or not the board of directors had knowledge of such habit or custom on the part of its president, McCain. In other words, it was an issue for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wales-Riggs Plantations v. CastonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Feed Mills, Inc. v. Fox De Luxe Foods, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1959
- Lewis v. Forrest City Special Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Browne-Brun Wholesale Grocery Co. v. HintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929