Horn v. Brand
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Perry Circuit Court; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The judgment is sustained by neither the law nor facts. There was no note. Only a conditional contract and the burden was on appellee to show performance of the conditions. It was error to refuse appellant the privilege of proving his defense. 3 Ark. 222; 30 Id. 186; 9 Oyc. 699, 782. STATEMENT OE EAOTS. D. A. Brand sued U. Gr.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Perry Circuit Court; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The judgment is sustained by neither the law nor facts. There was no note. Only a conditional contract and the burden was on appellee to show performance of the conditions. It was error to refuse appellant the privilege of proving his defense. 3 Ark. 222; 30 Id. 186; 9 Oyc. 699, 782. STATEMENT OE EAOTS. D. A. Brand sued U. Gr. Horn on a promissory note for $324.14. The note was given for the purchase, by Horn, of a claim held by Brand against the Bank of Casa and was executed under the following contract: “Be it remembered that on…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
(after stating the facts). The note sued on was introduced in evidence and shows that the defendant owed the amount for which judgment was rendered if the note was a valid obligation: The note was executed pursuant to the terms of the contract and this brings us to the question of whether or not the condition in the contract was a condition precedent or a condition subsequent.
In the case of Cooper v. Green, 28 Ark. 48, the court speaking with reference to a deed said: ‘ ‘ Conditions precedent are, as the term implies, such as must happen before the estate dependent upon them can arise or be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cooper v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. RyanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Maurer v. ChandlerOhio Court of Appeals · 1954