Paragould Trust Co. v. Willcockson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Greene .«Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge; 1. The complaint -and amendment each states a. different cause of action. It is not demurrable. The striking of a name from «a negotiable note -does not always release from liability. It may be by consent or a spoliation by a stranger.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene .«Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge; 1. The complaint -and amendment each states a. different cause of action. It is not demurrable. The striking of a name from «a negotiable note -does not always release from liability. It may be by consent or a spoliation by a stranger. The mere fact of an erasure does not per se raise a presumption of invalidity. 69 Ark. 140; 30 Id. 285; 102 Id. 302; lb. 287; 96 Id. 163; 91 Id. 400. Every reasonable intendment must be indulged in support of the view that the complaint states a cause of action. 2. The demurrer admits that Kimmel -and…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant brought suit in the court below on a promissory note, the face of which reads as follows: ‘ ‘$800.00. Walcott, Ark., April 10,1911.
“On January 1, 1912, after date, we promise to pay to the order of M. M. Kimmel eight hundred dollars, for value received, without any relief whatever from valuation or appraisement laws, with 10 per cent, interest from date until paid, and attorneys ’ fees.
Mack Potter,
J. E. Newberry,
W. P. Ryan,
W. L. Cline,
W. T. Crowley,
W. A. Arnold,
R. A. Willcockson,’
WT-Gv-Wll-lcockaonW-
Tihe original suit was brought against only those signers whose names .are not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phillips v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bridges v. Harold L. Schaefer, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1944