Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Fondren
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. The instrument sued on Was a negotiable bill of exchange. 33 Ark. 47; 94 Id. 100. It was purchased for value before maturity .and appellant was an innocent purchaser. A verdict should have been directed for the plaintiff. 94 Ark. 100; 8 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 233; 166 S. W. 953; 170 Id. 578. Appellant was not an innocent purchaser for value without notice, within the rule. 79 Ark. 149; 86 Id. 201; 90 Id. 97.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The defendants, Fondren & Moore, merchants at Kensett, Arkansas, purchased a bill of jewelry from the National Novelty Import Company, a corporation doing business at St. Louis. The bill of goods aggregated $296, and defendants accepted time drafts drawn on them by the seller. The purchase was covered by a written contract which specified the terms of the sale. The drafts were assigned before ¡maturity to the plaintiff, Metropolitan Discount 'Company, a corporation doing business at St. Louis, for the purpose, as its name implies, of dealing in commercial paper. This is a suit on one of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Main v. DearingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Tabor v. Merchants National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
3Cited by7 opinions
- Arnett v. SandersonArizona Supreme Court · 1923
- Equitable Discount Corp. v. TrotterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- McCollum v. GraberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Citizens' Union National Bank v. ThweattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Iowa City State Bank v. BiggadikeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.