Hoffman v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clay Chancery Court, Western District) Chas. D. Frierson, Chancellor; 1. The court erred in dismissing appellant’s prayer for reformation of the notes. The evidence that the intention was to sign as president of the Hoffman Investment Company is not contradicted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Chancery Court, Western District) Chas. D. Frierson, Chancellor; 1. The court erred in dismissing appellant’s prayer for reformation of the notes. The evidence that the intention was to sign as president of the Hoffman Investment Company is not contradicted. Moreover, appellee treated and recognized the notes as the notes of the investment company, and the fact that it kept them in its possession fourteen months after they became due before it made demand for payment from defendant, is conclusive that it knew of the mistake and of the intention to sign as president of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee brought suit upon two promissory notes, each for the sum of $331.09, and dated February 10, 1910, and signed by H. M. Hoffman and the appellant, G. A. Hoffman, and due thirty and sixty days after date.
Appellee alleged, and offered proof tending to show, that on or about October, 1909, it sold a bill of goods to the Hoffman Investment Company, a Missouri corporation doing business at Swan Lake, Arkansas, where it operated a farm, and a commissary for the benefit of the tenants on the farm, and that appellant was president of this corporation and his son, H. M. Hoffman, was secretary.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McGuigan v. GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
- Tedford Auto Co. v. ThomasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Denny v. BarberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
3Cited by3 opinions
- Connecticut Fire Insurance v. WiggintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Augusta Cooperage Co. v. BlochSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Eureka Stone Co. v. RoachSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915