Road Improvement District No. 1 v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The fact that the note provides that it may be payable on or before a certain day does not destroy its negotiability. McCormick v. Daggett, 162 Ark. 16.
It is contended, however, that by the language of the ■ note itself it is payable out of a particular fund’ which may prove inadequate to meet the note in full and that this destroys its negotiability within the rule laid down in Rector v. Strauss, 134 Ark. 374. We do not think that the facts in the case at bar are similar to those in the case just cited. In that case the note- recited that it was made with…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCormick v. DaggettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Arkansas Foundry Co. v. StanleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Rector v. StraussSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Tucker Lake Reclamation District v. WinfreySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bridges v. Shapleigh Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Dancy v. PeytonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926