Soekland v. Storch
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas 'Circuit Court, Northern District; T. O. Trimble, Judge; 1. Payment of a note to a fictitious person cannot be enforced, except in the hands of an innocent purchaser. 1 Daniels Neg. Inst. (5 ed.) § 136; 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, (2 ed.) p. 115; Bigelow on Bills, etc., (2 ed.), p. 26; 4 A. & E. Ene. L. (2 ed.) p. 116.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
John Storch sued A. H.. Soekland for $147.00 alleged to be due on a promissory note. The plaintiff introduced in evidence a note dated Stuttgart, Arkansas, October 1st, 1912, for $147.00 payable to the order of M. Krause at the National Bank of Stuttgart, Arkansas.
The plaintiff testified that his real name is John Storch; that at the date of the execution of the note, on account of trouble that he had had with his wife he assumed the name of M. Krause, Krause having been his mother’s maiden name; that he loaned to the defendant $147.00 and took the defendant’s note therefor payable to the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bourne v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
- Florida National Bank at St. Petersburg v. GeerSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
- State v. JensenUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Johnston v. Exchange Nat'l. Bank of TampaSupreme Court of Florida · 1942
- Ritter v. MooreIdaho Supreme Court · 1942