Saxon v. McGill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating- the facts). The court erred in directing- a verdict for the defendants. Under the facts stated, before the enactment of our Negotiable Instruments Act, the plaintiff, as payee, could be a bona fide holder for value without notice, and was entitled to recover.
In White-Wilson-Drew Co. v. Eglehoff, 96 Ark. 105, 131 S. W. 208, it was held that one who signs as surety a note, blank as to tbe amount, under an agreement with the maker that it should he filled in for an amount not to exceed a specified sum, and the maker filled in the blank in an amount greatly in excess…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Liberty Trust Co. v. TiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Ex parte Goldberg & LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- White-Wilson-Drew Co. v. EgelhoffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. ClarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- Balliet v. WollersheimWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
- Copeland v. Union Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyTexas Supreme Court · 1961