Cagle v. Lane
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Polk Circuit Court. R. D. Hearn, Sp. Judge. Lane sued Cagle on his promissory note for $1000. It appeared that one Cummings had a patent coffee-pot condenser, and that he had sold certain territory to one Wagoner, and taken Wagoner’s note for $750, which he had sold to Lane. For certain reasons the trade with Wagoner had to be canceled, and this obliged Cummings to take up Wagoner’s note from Lane.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Polk Circuit Court. R. D. Hearn, Sp. Judge. Lane sued Cagle on his promissory note for $1000. It appeared that one Cummings had a patent coffee-pot condenser, and that he had sold certain territory to one Wagoner, and taken Wagoner’s note for $750, which he had sold to Lane. For certain reasons the trade with Wagoner had to be canceled, and this obliged Cummings to take up Wagoner’s note from Lane. Cummings then sold certain territory to Cagle, and had Cagle make his note for $ IOOO direct to Lane, he having previously made an agreement with Lane to take it and surrender the $750…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
The appellant’s defence of fraud and a failure of consideration to the note sued on, could have been made without a transfer of the cause to the equity docket. The transfer was made at his instance, however, and he does not, and could not be heard to, complain.
The burden of showing that Lane, the plaintiff, combined with Cummings, the patentee, to decoy the defendant into the purchase of a worthless invention, was upon the latter. The Chancellor found that no collusion was proved, nor fraud on the part of the plaintiff shown. The preponderance of the evidence is with the Chancellor’s finding,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Brown v. BrownCity of New York Municipal Court · 1915
- Horn Et Ux. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Reynolds v. RothSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Taylor v. DeeseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Williams v. NeelyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904