Holland v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, CA
Decision Date | 18 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
Citation | 711 S.W.2d 481,18 Ark.App. 119 |
Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Parties | Vernon HOLLAND, Appellant, v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK, Appellee. 85-434. |
Taylor & Watson by W.H. Taylor, Springdale, for appellant.
Everett & Whitlock, Prairie Grove, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for directed verdict. The appellant, Vernon Holland, was sued by the appellee, Farmers & Merchants Bank of Prairie Grove, Arkansas, for $32,599.76 alleged to be due as principal and interest on a promissory note. Holland answered, pleading the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction.
At trial, the bank's president testified that the note was secured by a security agreement on some cattle owned by Holland that he had given Holland permission to sell some of the cattle and to take the money received and credit it on the note; that this was done and he received a check for $7,700.00, but there was no agreement to take this amount in full satisfaction of the note. On the other hand, Mr. Holland testified that there was an agreement between himself and the bank's president under which the cattle would be sold and the amount received would be paid to the bank in full satisfaction of the note. He testified that the bank sent the purchaser of the cattle out to his place, that the bank made the agreement to sell the cattle for $7,700.00, and that the purchaser gave him the check and he gave it to the president of the bank.
At the conclusion of the above testimony, the bank moved for a directed verdict for the amount due on its note, and the court granted the motion on the basis that Holland's defense of accord and satisfaction had failed because the alleged agreement was not supported by consideration.
Appellant, having pled accord and satisfaction, had the burden of sustaining the plea. Salem School District No. 30 v. Unit Structures, Inc., 232 Ark. 939, 341 S.W.2d 50 (1960). The essential elements necessary for accord and satisfaction are: proper subject matter, competent parties, an assent or meeting of the minds of the parties, and consideration. Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, 284 S.W.2d 857 (1955). In Lilly v. Verser, 133 Ark. 547, 553, 203 S.W. 31 (1918), the court stated:
In the instant case, the payment and acceptance constituted an accord and satisfaction irrespective of whether the note and mortgage were surrendered or whether a written receipt or release was issued, because under the common law...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Larimore v. State
-
Grayson & Grayson, P.A. v. Couch
...125, 697 S.W.2d 936 (1985); see also Glover v. Woodhaven Homes, Inc., 346 Ark. 397, 57 S.W.3d 211 (2001); Holland v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 18 Ark.App. 119, 711 S.W.2d 481 (1986). When the testimony is in conflict on the issue of whether the parties agreed and what the terms of the agree......
-
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Polar Exp., Inc.
...(1985). An accord and satisfaction requires proper subject matter, competent parties, and consideration. Holland v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 18 Ark.App. 119, 711 S.W.2d 481 (1986). Before there can be an accord and satisfaction, there must be a disputed amount involved and a consent to acc......
-
Davenport v. Pack
...as the defense of laches, presents an issue of fact and should not have been decided on the pleadings. See Holland v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 18 Ark.App. 119, 711 S.W.2d 481 (1986). Since the chancellor's decision was not based on any evidence, we reverse and remand to the trial court for......