Harrison v. Luce

• Decision Date: 15 January 1898
• Citation: 43 S.W. 970
• Parties: HARRISON v. LUCE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

43 S.W. 970

HARRISON v. LUCE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 15, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.

Action by B. Luce against E. M. Harrison on a note. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order overruling a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. Luce sued upon a note executed by E. M. and W. S. Harrison, for $200 and interest, dated on April 22, 1889, payable to J. B. Nedry, and by J. B. Nedry assigned to Gus A. Gill, and by Gus A. Gill assigned to appellee. He alleged in his complaint that J. B. Nedry changed the date of the note from the 22d to the 24th, without the consent or knowledge of E. M. Harrison, but that, before Gill purchased the note from Nedry, he found Harrison on the street, and exhibited the note to him (Harrison), and asked him if it was all right; that Harrison assured Gill that said note was all right, and that he intended to pay it. E. M. Harrison answered that the note was changed in date after its execution and delivery, and was void, and denied that he ever promised to pay Gill, or that the note was exhibited to him by Gill. He alleged that Nedry was the real plaintiff, and that Gill had withdrawn his suit upon the note, and transferred same to B. Luce, for the reason that Luce had Nedry in a place where he could force payment. Upon the trial, plaintiff proved by Gus A. Gill that, before purchasing the note from Nedry, he exhibited same to E. M. Harrison, and that Harrison took it, and, after looking at it, said it was all right, and that he (Gill) could safely purchase it, and promised to pay it; that he did not call Harrison's attention to the change in date; that, when he sold the note to Luce, he told Luce of the conversation with Harrison. J. B. Nedry swore that he changed the date from April 22d to 24th; that he sold to Gus A. Gill; that he was in Gus Gill's office, and Gill asked him if he wanted to sell the note, and that Gill said, if it was all right, he would buy it; that Harrison was not present at this conversation. The defendant objected to the evidence, for the reason that Harrison was not present. The court admitted the evidence, and the defendant saved his exception; and, over the objection of defendant, he was permitted to state: "Gill told me to stay in his office until he went to see Harrison about it." Defendant saved his exception. Over objection of defendant, he was permitted to state: "After Gill came back, he told me it was all right, and that he would buy it." Defendant saved his exception for same reason, — that Harrison was not present. B. Luce testified that he purchased the note, and never had a conversation with E. M. Harrison before doing so. The defendant swore that the note was changed in date, and a mortgage given by Nedry to secure same, without his consent or knowledge, and that he never agreed to pay Gill; that Gill never exhibited the note to him; that he did not know of change in date of note until Gill first sued on it; that, when Gill's collector presented same for payment, they refused to allow him to look at it; that Gill never pointed out any change in date of note. Defendant further offered to swear that Gill told him he withdrew his suit on the note because he had secured a place for Nedry's daughter,...