U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wells, No. 5--4794

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtFOGLEMAN
Citation246 Ark. 255,437 S.W.2d 797
PartiesUNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Conrad J. WELLS, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 5--4794
Decision Date03 March 1969

Page 797

437 S.W.2d 797
246 Ark. 255
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Conrad J. WELLS, Appellee.
No. 5--4794.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
March 3, 1969.

[246 Ark. 256] Gannaway & Darrow, Little Rock, for appellant.

Guy H. Jones and Phil Stratton, Conway, for appellee.

FOGLEMAN, Justice.

This case involves the liability of appellee upon a promissory note executed by him on December 21, 1959. The principal question involved is whether appellant who sued on the note was entitled to a directed verdict as a holder who had all the rights of a holder in due course. Since we agree with appellant on this point, it is unnecessary that we consider any of the other points raised.

Appellee Wells purchased a bulldozer from Kern-Limerick, Inc., on or about the date the note was executed. Appellee traded another piece of equipment as part of the down payment and gave the note in question for the remainder. This note was for $2,892.36 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum until maturity and 10% per annum after maturity. The balance of the purchase price was secured by a conditional sale contract which was assigned to Associates Discount Corporation.

The note to Kern-Limerick was negotiated to the First National Bank in Little Rock on December 23, 1959. The status

Page 798

of the bank as a holder in due course is undisputed. It was indicated on the face of the note that it was secured by a lien on the bulldozer. The note was payable in two installments due on June 1, 1960, and December 1, 1960, respectively. Kern-Limerick was engaged in the sale of construction equipment and handled many transactions in a similar manner. This concern filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy and was declared bankrupt on or about May 24, 1960.

[246 Ark. 257] When the bank attempted to collect the note, it learned that it was not secured by a first lien on the bulldozer and that its lien was subject to the lien of the conditional sale contract. The bank then made a claim against appellant under its banker's blanket bond on this and other notes of a similar nature. Appellant's liability was settled by the payment of $125,169.04 and the assignment of the notes upon which the claim was recognized. It appears that the payment made represented the total of the balances due on these notes on the date of assignment. While the assignment bears no date, it is undisputed that it was made well after the date of the maturity of the last installment of the note in question.

After appellee's refusal to pay the note, appellant filed suit. At the trial, a verdict in favor of the appellee was rendered by the jury and judgment entered pursuant to this verdict.

Appellant bases its contention upon Ark.Stat.Ann. § 68--158 (Repl. 1957). This is § 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and is applicable to this transaction. See § 10--102 of Act 185 of 1961 and Compiler's Notes following...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Feltch v. General Rental Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 8, 1981
    ...for loss of consortium as arising from the physical injury to one spouse. See Eggert v. Working, supra at 1391; Nelson v. Busby, supra 246 Ark. at 255, 437 S.W.2d 799; White v. Lunder, supra 66 Wis.2d at 574, 225 N.W.2d 442. The view that a consortium[383 Mass. 607] claim is "derivative" ha......
  • Weast v. Arnold, No. 62
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • May 10, 1984
    ...As to the "shelter" provision of § 58 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, see United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wells, 246 Ark. 255, 258, 437 S.W.2d 797, 798-99 (1969) ("It is immaterial that the [474 A.2d 910] transferee of a note from a holder in due course took it after mat......
  • Scattaregia v. Shin Shen Wu, No. 914
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 21, 1985
    ...since his cause of action is derivative, [a husband] can have no better standing in court than [that] vested in his wife." Nelson, supra 246 Ark. at 255, 437 S.W.2d at Accordingly, the husband's damages shall be reduced by 49% to $2,550 and Rule 238 delay damages shall be calculated on dama......
  • Nelson v. Busby, No. 5--4803
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 3, 1969
    ...Mary Busby. The jury found his total damages to be $5000 and the trial court entered judgment for $3250 because Mary Busby was found to [246 Ark. 255] have been 35% negligent. We think appellees' contention is fairly answered in the negative by our own case of Sisemore v. Neal, 236 Ark. 574......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Feltch v. General Rental Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 8, 1981
    ...for loss of consortium as arising from the physical injury to one spouse. See Eggert v. Working, supra at 1391; Nelson v. Busby, supra 246 Ark. at 255, 437 S.W.2d 799; White v. Lunder, supra 66 Wis.2d at 574, 225 N.W.2d 442. The view that a consortium[383 Mass. 607] claim is "derivative" ha......
  • Weast v. Arnold, No. 62
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • May 10, 1984
    ...As to the "shelter" provision of § 58 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, see United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wells, 246 Ark. 255, 258, 437 S.W.2d 797, 798-99 (1969) ("It is immaterial that the [474 A.2d 910] transferee of a note from a holder in due course took it after mat......
  • Scattaregia v. Shin Shen Wu, No. 914
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 21, 1985
    ...since his cause of action is derivative, [a husband] can have no better standing in court than [that] vested in his wife." Nelson, supra 246 Ark. at 255, 437 S.W.2d at Accordingly, the husband's damages shall be reduced by 49% to $2,550 and Rule 238 delay damages shall be calculated on dama......
  • Nelson v. Busby, No. 5--4803
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 3, 1969
    ...Mary Busby. The jury found his total damages to be $5000 and the trial court entered judgment for $3250 because Mary Busby was found to [246 Ark. 255] have been 35% negligent. We think appellees' contention is fairly answered in the negative by our own case of Sisemore v. Neal, 236 Ark. 574......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT