Legal Opinion

Seay v. Davis

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 7, 1969No. 5-4793PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Supplemental opinion on rehearing; rehearing denied.

George Rose Smith, Justice,

on rehearing. In our original opinion in this case, 246 Ark. 201, 438 S.W. 2d 479, we held that under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code the appellants were not entitled to accelerate the maturity of the note and mortgage, because the proof showed that they did not believe in good faith, as the statute requires, that the prospect of pavment or performance had been impaired. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 85-1-208 (Add. 1961).

In a petition for rehearing the appellants insist that the Code applies only when the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crone v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
  2. Seay v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bowen v. DannaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Schulte v. Benton Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  3. Westlund v. MelsonCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1983
  4. Hickmon v. BeeneCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1982
  5. Bowen v. DannaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API