Legal Opinion

Saxon v. McGill

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 29, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Liberty Trust Co. v. TiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. Ex parte Goldberg & LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  3. White-Wilson-Drew Co. v. EgelhoffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Smith v. ClarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  2. Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Balliet v. WollersheimWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Copeland v. Union Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  5. Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyTexas Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API