Keathley v. Holland Banking Co.
Decision Date | 30 March 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 236.) |
Citation | 166 S.W. 953 |
Parties | KEATHLEY v. HOLLAND BANKING CO. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Yell County; Hugh Basham, Judge.
Action by the Holland Banking Company against J. A. Keathley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was a suit upon three notes aggregating $2,800, which were executed by appellants to Holland Stock Farm, a private business owned by Charles Holland, and by him assigned to appellee. Appellants answered and admitted the execution of the notes, but alleged they were executed for the benefit of the Yell County Stock Breeders' Association, which association they asked to have made party defendant. The answer denied that appellee was an innocent holder of the notes for value, but stated the facts to be that said notes were given in payment of a Percheron stallion named "Jenner," which was represented to be a show horse of country-wide reputation and to have no superior, and that but for such false and fraudulent representation they would not have purchased said horse; and it was further alleged that when they purchased said horse it was represented and agreed that the Holland Stock Farm would not sell another horse in Yell county, whereas the said Holland Stock Farm sold two other stallions of the same breed in Yell county within a month after the sale to appellants. Appellants set up a claim for damages for the false representations concerning the said horse. Appellee filed a demurrer to the answer, which was overruled. A written warranty was given to appellants at the time of the execution of the notes, which reads as follows:
At the trial appellants undertook to show an agreement on the part of Holland not to sell another horse of that breed in Yell county, and that this was the inducing cause of the contract, but for which appellants would not have signed the note, and also offered to show that the horse was represented to be a show horse of country-wide reputation, when in fact he was a very ordinary horse of the Percheron breed and was only worth about $600, and that two other horses of the same kind had been sold in Yell county, and appellants had lost business to the amount of $1,500. The court excluded all this evidence upon the ground that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Downs v. Horton
...The following are the cases cited in appellant's brief, which are to be cited in notes of reporter: Arkansas: Keathley v. Holland Banking Co., 166 S. W. 953, 954; Harbison v. Hammonds, 113 Ark. 120, 167 S. W. 849, 850; Conqueror Trust Co. v. Reves Drug Co., 118 Ark. 222, 176 S. W. 119; Metr......
-
McCollum v. Graber
... ... money on the check from the plaintiff on March 2, 1943. There ... were no banking facilities at Pascola. The next day while the ... plaintiff was making a list of various checks to ... Ark. 28, 166 S.W. 943; Bank of Monette v ... Hale, 104 Ark. 388, 149 S.W. 845; Holland ... Banking Co. v. Haynes, 125 Ark. 10, 187 S.W ... 632; and Rose v. Spear, 187 Ark. 168, 58 ... in favor of the makers. White v. Moffett, ... 108 Ark. 490, 158 S.W. 505; Keathley v. Holland ... Banking Co., 112 Ark. 608, 166 S.W. 953." ... [207 ... Ark ... ...
-
McCollum v. Graber, 4-7484.
...him to take notice of the defense existing in favor of the makers. White v. Moffett, 108 Ark. 490, 158 S.W. 505; Keatley v. Holland Banking Co., 112 Ark. 608, 166 S.W. 953." The rule was thus expressed in the case of Hamburg Bank v. Ahrens, 118 Ark. 548, 177 S.W. 14, 17: "The burden was upo......
- Pioneer Life Insurance Company v. Cox