Arkansas Nat. Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, No. 75--19

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtFOGLEMAN
Citation525 S.W.2d 82,258 Ark. 329
PartiesARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. CLEBURNE COUNTY BANK, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 75--19
Decision Date23 June 1975

Page 82

525 S.W.2d 82
258 Ark. 329
ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK, Appellant,
v.
CLEBURNE COUNTY BANK, Appellee.
No. 75--19.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
June 23, 1975.

[258 Ark. 330]

Page 83

Reed & Blackburn, P.A., by C. E. Blackburn, Heber Springs, for appellant.

Olmstead & McSpadden by Stephen Choate, Heber Springs, for appellee.

FOGLEMAN, Justice.

Robert M. Edwards was formerly employed by Dr. Wayne H. Smith of Heber Springs, Arkansas, as a physician's assistant. In July and October, 1973, Edwards borrowed money from Cleburne County Bank and Arkansas National Bank, respectively, $2500 from each institution, executing a promissory note and security agreement as a part of each transaction. Each bank filed for record its financing statement or security agreement covering the same property of Edwards. Edwards failed

Page 84

to make payments to either bank. This appeal is from the holding of the chancery court that the security interest of Cleburne County Bank had priority over that of Arkansas National Bank, entitling Cleburne County Bank to priority with respect to the proceeds of the sale of Edwards' property being held in the registry of the court.

The single point for reversal urged by Arkansas National Bank relates to its contention raised in the trial court that the security agreement with Cleburne County Bank had been materially altered and was therefore void, or, in the alternative, should be restricted to those items included when it was originally written. The evidence on behalf of appellant [258 Ark. 331] was circumstantial. In attempting to prove a circumstance supporting its contention, appellant called as a witness an attorney, Hoyt Thomas, whose client was Edwards' employer, Dr. Smith, who had previously been dismissed as a party defendant in the action. Thomas refused to give testimony with respect to information he had received from certain third parties (Mr. Johnson, president of Cleburne County Bank and Mr. Hensley, president of Arkansas National Bank) in the course of his representation of Dr. Smith; testimony that in December 1973, Thomas went to Cleburne County Bank and secured a copy of that bank's security agreement, which copy would be relevant to the alteration issue; and testimony concerning discussions Thomas had with appellant's attorney relative to the alteration issue. Thomas refused to testify on the ground that to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege, based on his relationship to Dr. Smith. The trial court sustained Thomas' refusal to testify, saying that Thomas could not be compelled to divulge anything from his files pertaining to the case without permission of Dr. Smith, which was refused. None of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Goldstone, No. CIV 12-0257 JB/LFG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 23, 2014
    ...for the client is insufficient to invoke attorney-client privilege. See 805 F.2d at 1326 (quoting Ark. Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne Cnty. Bank, 525 S.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Ark. 1975)("An attorney may be required to produce papers belonging to his client where the knowledge of their existence is accessi......
  • Parker v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., No. 95-1134
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 23, 1996
    ...upon which they are based, while susceptible to confusion, are separate and distinct." Arkansas Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82 The discoverability of an insured's claim file under the work-product doctrine has been considered on many occasions by courts in o......
  • May v. Bob Hankins Distributing Co., No. 89-261
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 5, 1990
    ...when action in chancery court has Page 28 prevented the case from being fully developed, we remand. Ark. Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82 For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand. HAYS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. PRICE, J., not participating......
  • McNair v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, No. 25374
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • November 30, 1994
    ...privilege because no private communication is involved. Id. at 312, 720 P.2d at 1226 (citing Arkansas Nat. Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82, 84 (1975)). McNair asserts that the preparation of financial statements, the nature and extent of accounting work, banking se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Goldstone, No. CIV 12-0257 JB/LFG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 23, 2014
    ...for the client is insufficient to invoke attorney-client privilege. See 805 F.2d at 1326 (quoting Ark. Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne Cnty. Bank, 525 S.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Ark. 1975)("An attorney may be required to produce papers belonging to his client where the knowledge of their existence is accessi......
  • Parker v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., No. 95-1134
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 23, 1996
    ...upon which they are based, while susceptible to confusion, are separate and distinct." Arkansas Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82 The discoverability of an insured's claim file under the work-product doctrine has been considered on many occasions by courts in o......
  • May v. Bob Hankins Distributing Co., No. 89-261
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 5, 1990
    ...when action in chancery court has Page 28 prevented the case from being fully developed, we remand. Ark. Nat'l Bank v. Cleburne Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82 For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand. HAYS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. PRICE, J., not participating......
  • McNair v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, No. 25374
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • November 30, 1994
    ...privilege because no private communication is involved. Id. at 312, 720 P.2d at 1226 (citing Arkansas Nat. Bank v. Cleburne County Bank, 258 Ark. 329, 525 S.W.2d 82, 84 (1975)). McNair asserts that the preparation of financial statements, the nature and extent of accounting work, banking se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT