Allen-West Commission Co. v. People's Bank
| Decision Date | 28 January 1905 |
| Citation | Allen-West Commission Co. v. People's Bank, 74 Ark. 41, 84 S.W. 1041 (Ark. 1905) |
| Parties | ALLEN-WEST COMMISSION CO. v. PEOPLE'S BANK |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Cross appeals from Yell Circuit Court, Dardanelle DistrictWILLIAM L. MOOSE, Judge.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
On the 25th day of June, 1897, the Allen-West Commission Company, of St. Louis, Missouri, entered into the following contract with the People's Bank and John B. Crownover, the cashier of that bank:
The evidence shows that by custom of cotton dealers the cotton season of each year ended on the 1st day of September, and that a new season commenced on that day.
On the 1st day of September, 1897, the indebtedness of the bank and Crownover to the Commission Company was $ 343.58, on account carried over from the previous cotton year, and $ 2,500 on the note for money advanced under the contract.
During the season following the bank shipped the Commission Company under the contract 36 bales of cotton, and afterwards paid the note and the balance due on the account as above stated but did not pay the $ 1.25 per bale of cotton which was called for by the contract upon each bale which it fell short of contract requirement.Afterwards the Commission Company brought suit in the circuit court to recover a balance of $ 495.54, which it claimed under the contract.
The defendants appeared, and answered, and denied liability.On the trial the cause was submitted to the circuit judge without a jury, who found the following facts:
The court gave judgment accordingly.The plaintiff appealed, and defendants, after offering to pay the judgment, took a cross appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
G. S. Cunningham, J. C. Hart, J. M. Moore, W. B. Smith, for appellant.
A provision in the contract for the payment of the usual commissions for the sale of cotton as liquidated damages for failure to ship the cotton will not taint the contract with usury.22 S.C. 367;21 S.W. 946;56 N.W. 383;7 S.E. 224; 9 S.C. 344;65 Ala. 511;27 N.Y. 146;16 F. 89;10 S.E. 444; 74 Ga. 595;78 Ga. 251;6 Munf. 438;4 So. 190;64 Ala. 527;37 S.C. 579;64 Ala. 527.When a factor renders an account, it is the duty of the principal to examine it, and sanction or repudiate it within a reasonable time.Mech. Ag. §§ 1021, 1023;53 Ark. 160;107 U.S. 333;71 F. 58.
John B. Crownover and J. W. & M. House, for appellees.
A liability on a contract and on an account stated can not be joined in the same action.2 Green. Ev. 127;1 Johns. 34;2 Tenn. Rep. 479;26 N.W. 706.The bank can not be held responsible for a contract which is not authorized by its charter.2 Herm. Estop. §§ 1176, 1177.The contract is usurious.85 Ala. 384;10 S.E. 444; 78 Ga. 257;34 S.W. 405;64 Ala. 532;59 Ark. 366;95 N.C. 468;35 Oh. St. 107;54 Ala. 646;8 Neb. 48.This is not a suit on an account stated.108 F. 723.The burden of proving that appellant was a corporation was upon appellant, since the answer denied its corporate existence.2 Cook, Corp. § 637;7 Wend. 540.
OPINIONRIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts).
This is an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Randolph v. Nichol
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Bank of Batesville
...susceptible of two constructions, that construction most favorable to the bank should be adopted. 170 U.S. 133; 183 U.S. 418; 73 Ark. 333; 74 Ark. 41; Frost's Law of Ins. 67; 80 Ark. 49; 72 P. 1032; 67 P. 989. Guaranty companies are not favored sureties. The rule strictissimi juris does not......
-
Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Columbia Cotton Oil Co.
...placed the two clauses in the contract itself. A contract will be construed most strongly against the party who drafted it. 73 Ark. 338; 74 Ark. 41; 84 Ark. 431; 90 Ark. 88; 87 522; 105 Ark. 518; 112 Ark. 1; 171 S.W. 136. OPINION HART, J. The Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Company sued the ......
-
Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v. Talley
...been its duty to give that construction to those terms which would be most favorable to the appellee. 90 Ark. 88; Id. 256; 73 Ark. 338; 74 Ark. 41. 2. a wrongful or excessive demand under a contract is not in itself a breach of contract, is conceded, and the court so charged the jury; but, ......