Calhoun v. Sharkey
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, .Chancellor; 1. The facts of this case are identical with those in 118 Ark. 316. The Trust Company was not the agent of appellant to collect the payments on the notes..
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, .Chancellor; 1. The facts of this case are identical with those in 118 Ark. 316. The Trust Company was not the agent of appellant to collect the payments on the notes.. It was the agent of appellee, Sharkey. 64 Ark. 119; 111 Id. 263; 141 S. W. '205; 102 Ark. 427; 109 Id. 107; 111 Id. 263; 55 Id. 347; 89 Id. 435; 105 Id. 152; 75 Id. 170; 105 Id. 446. 2. This was a purchase money note for land and should have been declared a lien on the land. 115 Ark. 316; 31 Ark. 140; 35 Id. 62; 14 Id. 628; 27 Id. 63; 31 Id. 240; 100 Id. 543. The special…
1Opinion of the Court
■Smith, J.
Appellant brought suit to enforce payment of a note for $250 dated May 1, 1908, and payable to the order of the Texarkana Trust Company, and given in payment of the balance due on a contract of purchase of a certain five acre tract of land. The note recited the purpose of its execution and was due one year after date. Appellant purchased the note for value on ’May 26, 1908. The consideration for the note was a contract on the part of the trust company to convey said tract of land upon payment of this purchase money. Interest on this note was paid regularly through the trust company…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Warren v. NixSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Calhoun v. AinsworthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Powell v. Missouri & Arkansas Land & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by4 opinions
- Strawberry Hill Land Corp. v. StarbuckSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- Coffin v. Planters Cotton Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Pontius v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1922
- Taylor v. HolmesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932