Robertson v. American Investment Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.,
(after stating the facts). The fact that the notes sued on by Robertson were indorsed, “without recourse on me”, by Plunkett is unimportant here. A syllabus in the case of Neely v. Black, 80 Ark. 212, reads as follows: “Indorsement of a promissory note without recourse does not indicate that the indorsee takes with notice of any defects, or that he does not take on the credit of the other party or parties to the note, but only that he takes without recourse on the indorser.”
Robertson therefore, by purchasing the purchase-money notes from Plunkett, acquired the equitable vendor ’s…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gaines v. SummersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Neely v. BlackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fullerton v. StorthzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Whitten Developments, Inc. v. AgeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- Elk Horn Bank & Trust Co. v. SpragginsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930