Haglin v. Friedman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from -'Sebastian Circuit 'Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. The defense of lack of consideration and fraud was not established. The burden was on defendant, for ■fraud is never presumed; it must be proven. 92 Ark. 509; 78 Id. 87; 77 Id. 355; 38 Id. 419. The note imports a consideration. Recovery is not defeated by mere inadequacy of consideration. 99 Ark. 238; 138 2. The consideration was proven.
Read the full summary
Appeal from -'Sebastian Circuit 'Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. The defense of lack of consideration and fraud was not established. The burden was on defendant, for ■fraud is never presumed; it must be proven. 92 Ark. 509; 78 Id. 87; 77 Id. 355; 38 Id. 419. The note imports a consideration. Recovery is not defeated by mere inadequacy of consideration. 99 Ark. 238; 138 2. The consideration was proven. It need not pass to the maker of the note; it may pass from the payee to a third party. 40 Ark. 69. A benefit to the promisor or a detriment or loss to the promisee is…
1Opinion of the Court
■Smith, J.
Appellant was the plaintiff below, and sued appellee on a note executed by him to the order of appellant for the sum of $500. The note was dated March 12, 1912, and was payable six months after date. The execution of "the note was admitted, but appellee alleged in his answer that its execution had been procured by fraud and that the note was void for lack of consideration. In support of these defenses appellee offered 'evidence ¡to the effect tihat the Arkansas Valley Trust Company, as executor of the estate of one Dave Mayo, was selling the saloon and restaurant fixtures of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stewart v. SimonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hatten R. Co. v. Baylies Et Ux.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1930
- City National Bank of Fort Smith, Arkansas v. VanderboomDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1968
- Western Silo Co. v. PruittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Dodd v. Axle-Nut Sign Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Harrington v. Citizens' Investment & Security Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.