Arnold v. Wood

• Decision Date: 29 January 1917
• Docket Number: 128
• Citation: 191 S.W. 960,127 Ark. 234
• Parties: ARNOLD v. WOOD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

191 S.W. 960

127 Ark. 234

ARNOLD v. WOOD

No. 128

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 29, 1917

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Dene H Coleman, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellee sued appellants upon a promissory note alleging the balance due to be $ 1,275.00. On January 22, 1914, at Alicia Arkansas, appellants executed a promissory note payable to the order of Earle Gibbons Company for $ 1,725.00, due 12 months after date. The defense of appellants to the action was that there was a material alteration of the note apparent on its face. The note was introduced in evidence before the jury and has been brought into the record here by proper stipulation.

Appellee Robert Wood, was a dealer in horses and mules and carried some to Alicia, Arkansas, to sell them. While there he met Earle Gibbons and traded to him some of his stock for the note in question. Wood testified that he had never met Gibbons until the day he exchanged his stock for the note in question; that there were no alterations in the note when he received it and that he acquired the note in good faith paying value for it before it was due. Other evidence was adduced by him tending to corroborate his testimony, and especially that portion of it tending to show that the note did not appear on its face to have been altered. The cashier of the bank to whom Wood showed the note testified that it did not bear any appearance of having been altered. On the part of the appellants it was shown that R. E. Allison and H K. Gibson both signed the note and that there were 19 persons who signed the note when it was executed. Both Gibson and Allison testified that they did not intend to sign a promissory note. They stated that Gibbons represented to them that he was organizing a corporation for the purpose of dealing in horses and other stock, and submitted to them, what they thought was a blank piece of paper to be signed by them as prospective subscribers to stock in the corporation to be organized; that they signed the paper in question on the faith of his representations and did not know that they had signed a promissory note; that when they found out that they had signed a promissory note, they went to Gibbons and demanded that their names be taken off of the note; that in response to their demand Gibbons took a pen and marked a black line through their names. The two names in question do not now appear upon the note, but evidence was adduced by the appellants tending to show that they had been erased therefrom, and that the note still bears evidence of such erasures. The evidence on behalf of appellant also tends to show that the note was submitted by Gibbons to an attorney who told him that the alteration of the note by running the pen through the two names rendered it void. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee and the case is here on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

W. P. Smith, G. M. Gibson and H. L. Ponder for appellants.

1. There was an apparent alteration of the note, that was apparent on its face, and this made it void not only in the hands of Gibson, but of the appellee. Acts 1913, 302; 35 Ark 146; 30 Id. 285; Crawford's Annotated Neg. Inst. Law, p. 206, and cases cited. Since the enactment of this statute the burden of explaining an apparent alteration is upon the party producing the paper. Ib. and cases cited; 20 Fla. 501, 512.

2. The proof shows clearly that two names had been erased and there can be no recovery.

3. A verdict should have been directed for defendants. The court erred in refusing the instructions requested by appellants. They were fair statements of the law.

A. S. Irby for appellee.

1. Appellee had no knowledge before or at the time he traded for the note that the names of Gibson and Allison were erased from the note nor was he a party to the alteration. The testimony was conflicting, but the jury, under proper instructions found for the appellee.

2. No evidence of erasure, or alteration, was apparent on the face of the instrument--nothing to arouse...