Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- In Re the Adoption of HolmanArizona Supreme Court · 1956
- Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. JonesArizona Supreme Court · 1945
- City of Phoenix v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
- Huntsman v. First National Bank of El PasoArizona Supreme Court · 1926
- Ashley v. KramerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- O'HERN v. BowlingArizona Supreme Court · 1973
- Allison-Kesley Ag Center, Inc. v. HildebrandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1992
- Stewart v. ThorntonArizona Supreme Court · 1977
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.