Legal Opinion

Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1971No. 10335PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMERON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the maker of a promissory note from a judgment in favor of the payee, Max E. Munson, and the United Bank of Arizona claiming to be a holder in due course.

On appeal we are called upon to answer the following questions:

1. Was the bank a holder in due course?

2. Was there consideration for the note ?

The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. In late 1966, Mecham Investment Company (Mecham Investment) began planning construction of a shopping center in Flagstaff, Arizona. Pursuant to that plan, Mr. Evan Mecham, president of the corporation,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re the Adoption of HolmanArizona Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. JonesArizona Supreme Court · 1945
  3. City of Phoenix v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
  4. Huntsman v. First National Bank of El PasoArizona Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Ashley v. KramerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. O'HERN v. BowlingArizona Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Allison-Kesley Ag Center, Inc. v. HildebrandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1992
  5. Stewart v. ThorntonArizona Supreme Court · 1977

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API