People's Savings Bank v. Manes

• Decision Date: 04 November 1918
• Docket Number: 223
• Parties: PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK v. MANES
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

206 S.W. 315

136 Ark. 215

PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK v. MANES

No. 223

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 4, 1918

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Daggett & Daggett, for appellant.

Appellant was an innocent purchaser of the note for value before maturity. 41 Ark. 418; 42 Id. 22; 102 Id 426; Ib. 451. Payment to the payee who is no longer the holder of the note does not discharge the maker. 102 Ark 426; 55 Id. 347. See also 75 Id. 170; 98 Id. 370. The question should have been submitted to a jury.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant instituted suit against appellee on the 13th day of September, 1915, in the Lee Circuit Court, upon the following note:

"$ 600.00.

Oak Forrest, Jan. 30, 1914.

"November 1st after date, I promise to pay to the order of Lewis & Bunch, six hundred dollars, with interest at ten per cent. per annum until paid, with value received. This note is secured by deed in trust of even date.

"T. J. Manes."

It was alleged that the payees, Lewis & Bunch, assigned the note to appellant before maturity for a valuable consideration; that there had been paid on the note $ 275, leaving a balance due of $ 325, principal, and $ 88.17 interest, for which judgment was asked.

Appellee answered that the note was given to cover the purchase price of two mules and to cover supplies to be furnished during the crop year of 1914 by Lewis & Bunch; that the note was fully paid in labor, in cotton, and by a return of the mules; that appellant had knowledge of the conditions surrounding the execution of the note and the payment thereof to Lewis & Bunch, and that it was not an innocent purchaser of the note for value, as alleged.

The cause was submitted to a jury upon the pleadings and evidence adduced, at the conclusion of which the court directed a verdict in favor of appellee. Accordingly, it was adjudged that appellant take nothing by its suit. From that judgment an appeal has been prosecuted to this court. The undisputed evidence in this case disclosed that appellee executed a note on January 30, 1914, for $ 600, $ 275 of which was to cover the purchase price of a pair of mules, and the balance of which was to cover supplies to be furnished appellee by Lewis & Bunch; that Lewis & Bunch furnished appellee goods and supplies to the amount of $ 937.19; that the note was in form as alleged; that prior to its maturity it was assigned as collateral, along with other notes, by Lewis & Bunch to appellant; that Lewis & Bunch went into bankruptcy; that the two mules were returned to the trustee in bankruptcy and credited on the note; that appellee delivered one bale of cotton to Griffis-Newbern Company, of the value of $ 36.40, which amount was also credited on the note; that the full amount of the note was paid to Lewis & Bunch, after it was transferred to appellant, in...