Exchange National Bank v. Coe

• Decision Date: 04 April 1910
• Citation: 127 S.W. 453,94 Ark. 387
• Parties: EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK v. COE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

127 S.W. 453

94 Ark. 387

EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK v. COE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 4, 1910

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Charles Coffin, Judge reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Gustave Jones, W. B. Smith and D. D. Terry, for appellant.

Possession with ostensible title makes a prima facie case. 13 Ark. 163; 48 Ark. 454; 88 Ark. 98; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., p. 186 and 806. The holder of collateral taken before maturity is a bona fide holder. 102 U.S. 25; 99 F. 18; 60 S.W. 1006; 41 Ark. 418; 42 Ark. 22. Poirier v. Morris, 20 Law & Equity 103. And the United States courts are in accord with the English law on the subject, as laid down in Swift v. Tyson, 13 Peters 1; 99 F. 18; 110 U.S. 288; 2 F. 843; 52 F. 98; 8 Cal 260; 18 La. An. 222; 102 U.S. 28; 62 U.S. 432; 26 Vt. 569; 62 Am. Dec. 592. See also 9 Cyc. 932; 1 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases p. 272, reporting Berket v. Elward, 68 Kan. 295, and note thereto on page 275, containing a full collation of the authorities on this subject. Under such circumstances the maker is entitled to no set off. 31 Ark. 20; 60 F. 754; 55 S.W. 35; 28 Ark. 336; 2 Dan. Neg. Inst. 1437.

Stuckey & Stuckey, for appellant.

The holder of a promissory note as collateral is not a bona fide holder. 13 Ark. 160; 63 Ark. 610.

OPINION

HART J.

On the 27th day of April, 1906, C. B. Coe executed his note for $ 600 to the Bank of Newport. The note was made payable to the order of the Bank of Newport at Newport, Arkansas, on November I, after date. The Bank of Newport was indebted to the Exchange National Bank of Little Rock, Arkansas, in a sum greater than the amount of the note. The indebtedness was due, and the Bank of Newport was being pressed by the Exchange National Bank for payment, or for security for the amount due. On the 28th day of April, 1906, the Bank of Newport indorsed the note in question, and sent it to the Exchange National Bank as collateral security for said indebtedness. As such indorsee, the Exchange National Bank brought this suit on the note against C. B. Coe, the maker.

From the judgment rendered against it the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The evidence on the part of the defendant was sufficient to show such fraud in law on the part of the Bank of Newport as would have been available to him as a defense had the suit been brought by it.

The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff had no notice of any such defense as between the original parties to the note.

The sole question, then, raised by the appeal is, can a person who receives a negotiable promissory note before its maturity, merely as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, be held to take it in the usual course of business and be considered a holder for value?

The question has never been decided by this court unless it can be said to have been determined in the cases of Bertrand v. Barkman, 13 Ark. 150, and Bank of Commerce v. Wright, 63 Ark. 604, 40 S.W. 81.

In the case of Bertrand v. Barkman, supra, the note was indorsed to the holder after its maturity. For that reason the question of law presented by the record in this case was not properly before the court for its decision, and what was said by the court on the question can be no authority except the persuasive force of the language used and the personnel of the judges sanctioning it.

In the case of Bank of Commerce v. Wright, 63 Ark. 604, 40 S.W. 81, the question was again considered by the court, and the rule announced in the case of Bertrand v. Barkman was quoted and approved; but the transfer in that case was accompanied by other transactions or promises, which the court held to constitute a new consideration. Hence the proposition of law raised by the record here was not properly before the court in that case, and what was there said will not be treated as a precedent. So, it may be said that the question is now squarely before us for the first time.

The decisions of the Federal, English and Canadian courts are to the effect that the holder of a negotiable note taken as collateral security for a pre-existing debt is a holder for value in due course of business, and as such is protected against the latent equities of third parties

In the case of Railroad Company v. National Bank, 102 U.S. 14, 26 L.Ed. 61, the court having under consideration, the precise question said: "The bank did not take the note in suit as a mere agent to receive the amount due when it suited the convenience of the debtor to make payment. It received the note under an obligation imposed by the commercial law to present it for payment and give notice of non-payment in the mode prescribed by the settled rules of that law. We are of the opinion that the undertaking of the bank to fix the liability of prior parties by due presentation for payment and due notice in case of nonpayment--an undertaking necessarily implied by becoming a party to the instrument--was a sufficient consideration...