Legal Opinion

First National Bank v. Rhode Island Insurance

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 30, 1931PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The court erred in holding that the First National Bank of Huttig was not entitled to the proceeds of the insurance draft for two reasons:

In the first place, under our Negotiable Instruments Act, § 7896 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, where, in a bill of exchange, the drawer and the drawee are the samé person, the holder may treat the instrument at his election either as a ¡bill of exchange or as a promissory note. This was the law prior to the passage of the act in question. A bill of exchange drawn by the maker upon himself is in legal effect a promissory…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Drinkall v. Movius State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Berenson v. London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. of LiverpoolMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  3. Pavenstedt v. . N.Y. Life Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  4. Barker v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  5. Davis v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Sharum v. DodsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  2. Thompson v. Bank of AmericaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004
  3. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. McLendonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  4. Canal Insurance v. First National Bank of Fort SmithCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1979
  5. Cable & Wireless, Ltd. v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.New York Supreme Court · 1948

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API