Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Bank of Commerce & T. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 56.)
• Citation: 272 S.W. 834
• Parties: ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 OF HOWARD COUNTY et al. v. BANK OF COMMERCE & TRUST CO. OF MEMPHIS, TENN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

272 S.W. 834

ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 OF HOWARD COUNTY et al. v. BANK OF COMMERCE & TRUST CO. OF MEMPHIS, TENN.

(No. 56.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 15, 1925.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Marvin Harris, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company of Memphis, Tenn., against Road Improvement District No. 1 of Howard County and another. From a judgment against the named defendant, it appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit by the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company of Memphis, Tenn., against Road Improvement District No. 1 of Howard County, Ark., and I. R. Packard, to recover the sum of $3,043.73, together with the accrued interest. The note sued on is as follows:

"Commissioner's Note, Road Improvement District No. 1, Howard County, Arkansas.

"On or before the first day of March, 1920, the undersigned Road Improvement District No. 1 of Howard county, in the state of Arkansas, promises to pay to I. R. Packard or order the sum of three thousand and forty-three and 73/100 dollars, paid at the rate of six per cent. per annum. This note is given for money advanced for necessary engineering work of the district, and is payable out of the first funds that shall come into the hands of the district not required to meet payments due on its outstanding bond issue, whether said funds shall be derived from taxation or from the sale of further bonds of the district; and this district hereby covenants that, in the execution of this note, it has in all respects complied with the laws of the state of Arkansas, particularly with the requirements of Act No. 338 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the state of Arkansas of the year 1915; that this district has been duly organized under said act, and that all things prerequisite to the validity of this note have happened and been performed as required by law.

"In witness whereof, said Road Improvement District No. 1 of Howard county, Ark., has executed this instrument by the hands of its commissioners, this 30th day of January, 1920, and has attested it with its corporate seal. Road Improvement District No. 1 of Howard County, Arkansas, by A. M. Smallwood, Chairman; A. A. Price, Secretary. [Corporate Seal.] Attest: A. A. Price, Secretary."

I. R. Packard, for value received, transferred the note to the plaintiff on February 18, 1920. The present suit was instituted on October 11, 1924. The proof shows that a note was executed pursuant to a resolution of the board of commissioners of the road improvement district on the 30th day of January, 1920, to pay I. R. Packard for engineering services in the construction of the improved road. The road improvement district was duly organized under the general laws of the state.

According to the evidence for the defendant, the resolution above referred to provided for the execution of a note bearing 8 per cent. interest per annum. After its execution the note was altered so as to bear 6 per cent. per annum. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the resolution was amended so as to call for the execution of a note bearing 6 per cent. interest, and that the note was executed pursuant to the amended resolution.

The court found that the note as originally executed bore 6 per cent. interest, and was not altered after its execution. The court further found that the note sued on was transferred to the plaintiff for value before maturity, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the district for the amount of the note with the accrued interest. The case is here on appeal.

Abe Collins, of De Queen, for appellant.

Horace Chamberlin, of Little Rock, for appellee.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The fact that the note provides that it may be payable on or before a certain day does not destroy its negotiability....