Legal Opinion
George H. McFadden Bros.' Agency v. Keesee
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided May 13, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after staging the facts). The record shows that the cotton was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant for cash and a check given in payment thereof. Where goods are sold for cash on delivery, and payment is made by the purchaser by check on his banker, such payment is only conditional, and the delivery of the property also is only conditional; and if the check, on due presentation, is dishonored, the seller may retake the goods. National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Ry., 44 Minn. 224, 46 N. W. 342, 560, 9 L. R. A. 263; and Hodgson v. Barrett, 33 Ohio St. 63,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- S. A. Loux & Son v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Burns v. YocumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Brown & Hackney, Inc. v. LovelessSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
3Cited by7 opinions
- Farm and Home Savings and Loan Assn. v. StubbsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936
- Fletcher v. RaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Bd. of Dir. of St. Francis Levee Dist. v. HaganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Jett Brothers Stores v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Maryland Title Guarantee Co. v. AlterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.