Bank of Hoxie v. Woollen

Decision Date26 May 1930
Docket Number10
Citation28 S.W.2d 61,181 Ark. 843
PartiesBANK OF HOXIE v. WOOLLEN
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Lawrence Chancery Court, Eastern District; A. S. Irby Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

George M. Gibson and Chas. D. Frierson, for appellants.

Smith & Blackford, for appellee.

OPINION

MEHAFFY, J.

On June 17, 1929, appellee, M. R. Woollen, began this action in the Lawrence Chancery Court against the Bank of Hoxie, and afterwards filed an amendment to her complaint, making Mrs A. E. Richardson, as administratrix, a party defendant. She also on the 17th of June, 1929, began suit against the Lawrence County Bank, and Mrs. A. E. Richardson, as administratrix, was afterwards made a party defendant. Appellee on June 17, 1929, filed a suit against the Bank of Portia, and later amended, making Mrs. A. E. Richardson administratrix, defendant. She alleged that the defendant Bank of Hoxie claimed to hold a note purporting to be executed by her in the approximate sum of $ 2,200; that, if said bank in fact has such note, it was not signed by her, or by her authority or consent, and that she received no benefit whatever because of the execution of said note, and it was signed without her knowledge or consent; that she is in feeble health, and desires, for the protection of her estate to have the said bank to exhibit said note for cancellation by order of this court; that the claim of said bank against her for said sum greatly impairs her credit from a financial standpoint. The prayer was that the note be surrendered for cancellation, so far as she is concerned, and that said note and all liability of plaintiff thereunder be declared fraudulent and void and canceled. Mrs. A. E. Richardson, as administratrix of the estate of J. G. Richardson, deceased was made defendant because J. G. Richardson appears to have signed and indorsed the note in question. The complaints in the other two cases are substantially the same as the complaint in the case against the Bank of Hoxie. Defendants filed answers and cross-complaints, the cases were consolidated, and there was a finding and decree in favor of appellee. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse said decree. The undisputed evidence shows that the appellee, Mrs. M. R. Woollen, did not sign the notes. Appellants state in their brief: "J. G. Richardson being dead, the appellants are deprived of any evidence as to whether or not Mrs. Woollen personally signed the three notes in controversy." J. G. Richardson was appellee's brother and was one of the directors of the Bank of Hoxie at the time one of the notes was executed. Mrs. Woollen testified that she did not sign the note, and that at the time she testified was the first time she had ever seen the note; that in her judgment the signature of M. R. Woollen to the note was her brother's, (J. G. Richardson's); that he also signed his individual name below hers; that she did not authorize him to sign the note. The first she knew her name appeared on any note to the Bank of Hoxie was when Carroll McCarroll wrote her about it when she was in Tucson; that she did not authorize Mr. Richardson or any other person to sign her name to the note, and did not know any such note existed until Mr. Richardson died. He died December 26, 1928; that her brother had transacted some business for her some years ago, but never without her authority. She did not receive any notice from the bank about the note. Mr. Bassett, who was in the bank a while, testified that Mr. Richardson was president of the Lawrence County Bank from 1915, except one year, and was on the board of directors of the Bank of Portia. Mrs. Woollen testified that her name was on the note to the Bank of Portia in her brother's handwriting, and that his genuine signature was under her name; that she did not authorize him or any one else to sign this note or any other note. The same evidence was introduced by plaintiff as to all the notes. The evidence shows that Richardson took all the notes to the banks, and no one testified that appellee signed any of them. There was some evidence that notices had been sent to appellee, but no witness testifies that she ever received any notice. There was considerable testimony about when the notes were originally given and about renewals, but it is unnecessary to set it out here. Appellee's name was on all the notes. The evidence shows that Richardson always paid the interest, and that appellee was never called on to pay any interest. Most of the appellants' witnesses testified as to what the record showed as to the notes. Mr. Bassett testified that he at one time showed Mrs. Woollen two notes when she came into the bank to pay a $ 1,300 note. She did pay this note, but he said he showed her the other one also; that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Omaha Hardwood Lumber Co. v. JH Phipps Lumber Co., 12254
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 1, 1943
    ...Cotton Co., 124 Ark. 360, 187 S.W. 309; Arkansas Valley Bank v. Kelley, 176 Ark. 387, 3 S.W.2d 53, 58 A.L.R. 808; Bank of Hoxie v. Woollen, 181 Ark. 843, 28 S.W.2d 61; City National Bank v. Riggs, 188 Ark. 420, 66 S.W.2d 293; 2 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Permanent Edition, 775, § The......
  • City National Bank v. Riggs
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1933
    ...Ark. 425, 228 S.W. 46; DeCamp v. Graupner, 157 Ark. 578, 249 S.W. 6; Martin v. Hickman, 64 Ark. 217, 41 S.W. 852--all cited in Bank of Hoxie v. Woollen, supra. the bank was the agent of these note-holders, assumed to act as such by collecting the interest and by negotiating a renewal, in ad......
  • Arnold v. All Am. Assur. Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1973
    ...Agency v. Protectory for Boys, 197 Ark. 534, 124 S.W.2d 816; City National Bank v. Riggs, 188 Ark. 420, 66 S.W.2d 293; Bank of Hoxie v. Woollen, 181 Ark. 843, 28 S.W.2d 61; Coffin v. Planters Cotton Company, 124 Ark. 360, 187 S.W. 309. But failure to object may constitute acquiescence or ra......
  • Connerly v. Stephenson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1930
    ... ...          It ... occurs to me that the case of Gibson v ... Incorporated Town of Hoxie, 110 Ark. 544, 162 S.W ... 568, applies with peculiar force just here. In that case an ... No. 9 ... of Miller County v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank, 176 Ark. 474, 2 S.W.2d 1079. We ... there considered the requirements of [181 Ark. 839] ... ...
  • 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