Johnson v. Ankrum
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. Plaintiff was the agent of Alice Stanford and had the right to sue. Kirby’s Digest, § 6002; 76 Ark. 558; Mechem on Agency, § § 755, 763; Clark & Skyles on Agency, 1331,1341; 80 Ark. 228. 2. There was' sufficient consideration shown. 31 Ark. 222. Plaintiff had no right to sue. Alice Stanford should have been joined.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; 1. Plaintiff was the agent of Alice Stanford and had the right to sue. Kirby’s Digest, § 6002; 76 Ark. 558; Mechem on Agency, § § 755, 763; Clark & Skyles on Agency, 1331,1341; 80 Ark. 228. 2. There was' sufficient consideration shown. 31 Ark. 222. Plaintiff had no right to sue. Alice Stanford should have been joined. There was no consideration for the notes and no valid contract between plaintiff and appellee. 2 Black on Judgm., § 534.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
Appellant instituted this action against appellee before a justice of the peace to recover .the amount of a promissory'note in the sum of $160. There were no written pleadings, and the record does not disclose what defense was offered. The note sued on was one executed by appellee to appellant, and the. note was introduced in evidence. Appellant testified in substance that the note was executed to him in satisfaction or in renewal of two notes formerly executed by appellee to one Alice Stanford, and that he (appellant) had the notes for collection. . He testified that he had an agreement with…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Anthony v. First National Bank of MagnoliaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Smith v. RyanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Connell v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- American Railway Express Company v. ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- In re CarrollDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.