Elkins v. Moore
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. The note was a conditional one with an express agreement and understanding which was in parol.' The note was not the entire contract and parol evidence to show what the contract was should have been admitted. 55 Ark. 112; 88 S. W. 899; 99 Ark. 223; 71 Id. 408;’ 91 Id. 383; 90 Id. 426; 100 Id. 360. 2. The note was non-negotiable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. The note was a conditional one with an express agreement and understanding which was in parol.' The note was not the entire contract and parol evidence to show what the contract was should have been admitted. 55 Ark. 112; 88 S. W. 899; 99 Ark. 223; 71 Id. 408;’ 91 Id. 383; 90 Id. 426; 100 Id. 360. 2. The note was non-negotiable. The court erred in giving the peremptory instruction. 1. No objections were made nor exceptions saved to the instructions or admission of evidence. 81 Ark. 200; 88 Id. 505; 85 Id. 495. 2. But if so oral testimony…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
This suit originated in the court of a justice of the peace in Grant county. ' It was a suit on a plain note of hand in the sum of $250 brought by appellee against appellant. No defense was made in the J. P. Court. From the judgment by default in favor of appellee, an appeal was prosecuted to the Grant Circuit Court. An answer was filed, in substance, to the effect that the note was executed to indemnify appellee for any loss he might sustain on the sale of stock in the Arkansas Farm Loan & Trust Co. which appellant, through an agent, had sold appellee; that no loss was sustained and that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Cammack v. Southwestern Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. LambSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938