Hatch v. Hutchinson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. Will P". Feazel, Judge. Appellee was entitled to no credits, except such as were appropriated by Downs & Sutton as payments on the note. 70 tía. 381; 57 tía. 446; Weeks, Attys. (2 Ed.), p. 482; 6 Humph. (Tenn.), 62; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 194, footnote.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. Will P". Feazel, Judge. Appellee was entitled to no credits, except such as were appropriated by Downs & Sutton as payments on the note. 70 tía. 381; 57 tía. 446; Weeks, Attys. (2 Ed.), p. 482; 6 Humph. (Tenn.), 62; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 194, footnote. Downs & Sutton were appellant’s agents, and, they having collected more than enough to pay the note, appellant is bound. 5 D. & B. 735; 3 B. & B: 843; 4 Ad. & El. 64; 5 N. & M. 466; 52 Barb. (N. Y.), 627; 14 La. An. 361; 28 W. Ya. 333; 64 Tex. 108; 77 Ind. 567.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
This action was instituted by Hatch against Hutchinson before a justice of the peace, and was taken by appeal to the Howard circuit court. It was founded on a promissory note executed by Hutchinson to Hatch for $106, and ten per cent, per annum interest thereon from the 18th of June, 1887. The note is credited as follows: $20 on February 9, 1888; $20 on March 2, 1889; $11.20 on June 14, 1890; ■and $25.00 on November 10, 1890. The amount sued for is the balance remaining after the deduction of these credits. The defendant admitted the execution of the note, and the credits, but alleged that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pease v. Dibble & BunceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
- Price v. WhiteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
3Cited by5 opinions
- Williamson v. MonroeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1900
- Davison v. AllenIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
- American National Bank of Beaver Dam v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Sixkiller v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Driver v. Planters' Mutual Insurance Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906