Jackson v. Jones
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sharp Circuit Court, Northern District; John W. Meeks, Judge; The production of the note and proof that the indorsement was made before maturity raised the presumption that plaintiff was a bona Ude holder. 48 Ark. 454; 50 Ark. 289; 32 S. W. 357; Dan. Neg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sharp Circuit Court, Northern District; John W. Meeks, Judge; The production of the note and proof that the indorsement was made before maturity raised the presumption that plaintiff was a bona Ude holder. 48 Ark. 454; 50 Ark. 289; 32 S. W. 357; Dan. Neg. Inst., § 814; 94 U. S. 753 i 128 Ga. 504; 57 S. E. 869; 90 Pac. 1090; 97 S. W. 1232; 114 Ea. 883; 38 So. 594; iox Minn. 30; in N. W. 730; 130 Wis. 326; no N. W. 192. Abstract instructions should not be given. 2 Ark. 360; 90 Ark. 78. Appellant is entitled to recover unless he participated in the fraudulent transfer of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCueeoch, C. J.
Plaintiff Jackson sued defendants Jones and Wilson to recover on a negotiable promissory note executed by Jones as principal and Wilson as surety to one W. E. Smith, which note had been transferred before maturity by Smith to plaintiff. The defendants answered, setting forth facts sufficient to constitute a defense against Smith, the original payee, on account of alleged fraud and deceit in the sale of merchandise; and alleged further that plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser of the note for value, but purchased the note from Smith with notice of the facts constituting their defense. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908