Thornton v. Bowie
Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Appeal from. Pulasld Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The court erred in directing a verdict and the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. Thornton was only an accommodation surety and parol evidence was admissible to show this. 76 Ark. 140; 98 Id. 200; 92 Id. 204; 128 IT.
Read the full summary
• Appeal from. Pulasld Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The court erred in directing a verdict and the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. Thornton was only an accommodation surety and parol evidence was admissible to show this. 76 Ark. 140; 98 Id. 200; 92 Id. 204; 128 IT. S. 590; 64 N. W. 455; 54 Ark. 97; 118 N. C. 671; 3 R. C. L. 1138, § 354. 2. The extension of time discharged the surety. 77 Ark. 53; 65 Id. 204, .29 Id. 588; 49 Id. 465; 87 Tex. 578; Cent. Law Journal, 144 No. 17, p. 340. 3. Laches of the holder discharges the surety. Jones on Ch.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
On January 2, 1911, J. S. Stone and Annie Eogers borrowed the sum of a thousand dollars from the plaintiff, Monroe Bowie, and they, together with W. E. Stone, the father of J. S. Stone, executed to the plaintiff their joint promissory note for .said sum of money, due and payable one year after date with 8 per cent, interest per annum until paid. The defendant, J. Gr. Thornton, indorsed his name in blank on the back of the note before the same was delivered to the plaintiff. The money tras borrowed for the purpose of paying the price of a lot of furniture purchased by J. S. Stone and Annie…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilson v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Grisard v. HinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Vaughan v. VernonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- King v. HaynesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- Colvin v. GloverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Richardson v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Tallman v. BennettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922