Boqua v. Brady
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith • District ; Daniel Hon, Judge; The note here is an unconditional promise to pay a stipulated sum, executed by the appellee, and in possession of the appellant. The presumption is that it has not been paid, and the burden of proving payment would rest on the maker. 4 Am. & Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith • District ; Daniel Hon, Judge; The note here is an unconditional promise to pay a stipulated sum, executed by the appellee, and in possession of the appellant. The presumption is that it has not been paid, and the burden of proving payment would rest on the maker. 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 77; 65 Ga. 221; 49 Ark. 508; 42 Ark. 22. The holder of a bill ,or note is presumed to be a holder for value, and the consideration is also presumed. The burden is upon the defendant to prove want of consideration, -as also the want of bona tides in the holding,…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is a suit brought by James-Brady against A. E. Boqua, Jr., in the Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, for an amount alleged to be due upon an open account.
Boqua answered, admitting that he was indebted to Brady in the sum of $283.17 on open acount; but pleaded as a set-off that Brady was indebted to him in the sum of $1,080, as evidenced by a promissory note of said Brady for the sum of $1,000 and the accrued interest.
Brady pleaded want of consideration, and averred that he executed the note for accommodation merely.
The cause was tried before the court, sitting, as a jury. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dunnington v. Frick Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Johnston v. SchnabaumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Bank of Commerce v. WrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Anthony v. First National Bank of MagnoliaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Fisher v. Rice Growers BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916