Luster v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 01 July 1905 |
| Parties | LUSTER v. ROBINSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, EDWARD W. WINFIELD, Judge.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
In 1893, D. A. Robinson was a member of an incorporated society known as the "United Brothers of Friendship and Sisters of the Mysterious Ten" He held the office of Grand Master for Arkansas in that society. While he held this office, J. T. Thompson, Bryant Luster and John Beverly executed to him a promissory note in the words and figures as follows:
"Ninety days after date we promise to pay to the order of D. A Robinson, G. M. U. B. F. & S. M. T., fifty dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount at the office of the Citizens' Bank of Little Rock, Ark., with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from date until paid."
Robinson brought suit on this note against the defendants, who were duly summoned and judgment by default was rendered against them by T. W. Wilson, justice of the peace, for the amount of the note and interest. The judgment commences by reciting that "On April 20, 1894, the plaintiff, D. A. Robinson as G. M. U. B. F. & S. M. T., heretofore filed his complaint against the defendants, " etc. It then recites that the defendants came not, but made default, and that the action was founded on a promissory note, which is set out in full in the judgment. The judgment then proceeds as follows "Whereupon it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff have and recover of and from the defendants the sum of fifty dollars for the principal debt and the further sum of two dollars interest to this debt, and all costs herein expended, and have execution therefor; this judgment to bear interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum until paid."
In March, 1903, Robinson brought suit on this judgment against Bryant Luster. On the trial the defendant set up that the note upon which this judgment was based was executed to Robinson as Grand Master of the "United Brothers of Friendship and Sisters of the Mysterious Ten," in payment of a debt which J. T. Thompson owed to that society, and that Robinson had no personal interest in the note or in the judgment based thereon; that afterwards the defendant compromised and paid off the judgment to the successor of Robinson in the office of Grand Master.
Robinson claimed that the note was executed for an individual debt, in which the society had no interest. The justice found in favor of plaintiff, and in a trial de novo in the circuit court the same judgment was rendered, from which the defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
L. J. Brown, for appellant.
The evidence does not sustain the verdict and judgment. The suit was begun in the representative or official capacity of appellee, and it was error to permit an amendment substituting the appellee in his individual capacity as a party. 5 Watts (Pa.) 176; 64 Tex. 375; 1 Black Judg. § 158; 69 Ark. 52; 33 Ark. 454; 32 Ark. 454; 33 Ark. 475.
Marshall & Coffman, for appellee.
The initials following appellee's name were mere descriptions of person, and did not render the suit one by him in a representative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Laser Grain Co.
...be considered. Where a court tries a case without a jury, the presumption prevails that it based its findings upon competent testimony. 76 Ark. 255; 2 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 567; 90 N.W. 940; 88 Am. St. Rep. 849; 72 N.W. 1089, 3 Cyc. 362; 42 Ark. 314; 77 Ark. 261; 86 Ark. 316. 4. The so-called unif......
- Waters v. Merit Pants Co.
-
Norvell v. James
...with the same finality as are jury verdicts on appeal, and will be affirmed if supported by any substantial evidence. See Luster v. Robinson, 76 Ark. 255, 88 S.W. 896; Dunaway v. Ragsdale, 177 Ark. 718, 9 S.W.2d 6; Schulze v. Price, 213 Ark. 732, 213 S.W.2d 365. Where the court makes no spe......