{
  "id": 1337133,
  "name": "Gibbs v. Hopper",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gibbs v. Hopper",
  "decision_date": "1913-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 Ark. 60"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "9 Ark. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726906
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/9/0044-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 522",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871007
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/37/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ark. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726620
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/22/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ark. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1866112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/23/0014-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05048132149789428
    },
    "sha256": "33741c4c4069ecf0203bc666698e9277f7391f212f4749d5941960286d2d3338",
    "simhash": "1:aa2601adae23cf07",
    "word_count": 815
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:48:34.663007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gibbs v. Hopper."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.\nThis action was commenced in the justice court by J. F. Hopper against C. D. Gibbs, and on appeal to the circrnt court the following facts were proved:\nOn the 9th day of November, 1912, C. D. Gibbs, in Montgomery County, Arkansas, drew a check on the Caddo Valley Bank, Womble, Arkansas, in favor of W. M. Johnson, for one hundred dollars. Johnson, on the same day, for value received, endorsed the check to J. F. Hopper, and the latter cashed it. On the 11th day of November, 1912, Hopper sent the check to the Bank of Amity, at Amity, Arkansas, where he did his business, and, in the usual course, on the 15th day of November, 1912, the check reached the bank on which it was drawn, and, there being no funds 'in the bank to Gibbs\u2019 credit, the check was protested for nonpayment. Notices were sent to each of the endorsers, but none was sent to Gibbs, the drawer of the check. The testimony shows that there were no funds in the bank to the credit of Gibbs on the 9th day of November, the day the check was drawn, or on the 15th day of November, the day it was protested. The case was tried before the court sitting as a jury and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Hopper. From the judgment rendered, Gibbs has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nIn discussing a precisely similar question, in the case of Sullivan, Admr., v. Deadman, 23 Ark. 14, the court said: . \u201cIt was shown in evidence that the drawee had no funds of the drawer in his hands. This was prima facie an excuse for want of notice; and if any special circumstances existed, which entitled the drawer to notice without funds, as that he had a right to draw in consequence of engagements between himself and the drawee, or, that on taking up the bill, he had a right to sue the acceptor or any other party, and the like, the onus was on the defendant to show those circumstances\u2014 and, not having done so, the prima facie excuse made out is not rebutted, and must prevail. See Story on Bills, \u00a7 312, p. 389.\u201d See, also, McRae v. Rhodes, 22 Ark. 315; Story on Bills of Exchange (4 ed.), \u00a7 311; 7 Cyc. 1114.\nIn the present case it was shown in evidence that the drawee bank had no funds of the drawer in its hands, and, under the principles of law above announced, this was prima facie an excuse for want of notice. No special circumstances were shown to exist which entitled the drawer to notice.\nThe case of Minehart v. Handlin, 37 Ark. 276, relied upon by appellant, has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case -the drawee was indebted to the drawer, and the court held, therefore, that he had effects of the drawer in his hands at the time the bill was drawn and that the drawer had the right to give it and upon its nonpayment was entitled to notice.\nIt follows that the judgment must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. Witt, for appellant.",
      "Appellee, pro se.",
      "All bills of exchange are governed by the law merchant. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 508. It is not necessary to give notice of the dishonor of an inland bill. 9 Ark. 44.",
      "If it had been a foreign bill, it would not have been necessary, as the drawer had no funds in bank either \u25a0when the check was given\u2019or when it reached the bank for payment."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gibbs v. Hopper.\nOpinion delivered November 3, 1913.\nBills and notes\u2014check\u2014protest\u2014-notice.\u2014Where the drawee bank had no funds of the drawer of a cheek on said bank, a prima facie excuse is made out for not giving the drawer notice of the protest of the check for nonpayment.\nAppeal from Montgomery Circuit Court; G. T. Gotham, Judge;\naffirmed.\nG. Witt, for appellant.\nUnder sections 505 and 508, Kirby\u2019s Digest, appellant was entitled to notice of protest of Ms check, he being the drawer.\nWhen a debtor gives to his creditor a draft or bill of exchange drawn on a third person and it is received in full satisfaction of a debt, when paid, the person so receiving it assumes the duty of presenting it properly for acceptance and payment, and giving timely notice of its dishonor. Failing in either of these respects, he makes the bill his own, and it is deemed a satisfaction of the debt. 53 Ark. 522; '37 Ark. 282.\nExcept as otherwise provided by statute, when a negotiable instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance, or nonpayment, notice of its dishonor must be given to the drawer and to each endorser, and any drawer or endorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged. Elliott on Contracts, vol. 4, \u00a7 3480.\nAppellee, pro se.\nAll bills of exchange are governed by the law merchant. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 508. It is not necessary to give notice of the dishonor of an inland bill. 9 Ark. 44.\nIf it had been a foreign bill, it would not have been necessary, as the drawer had no funds in bank either \u25a0when the check was given\u2019or when it reached the bank for payment."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 78,
  "last_page_order": 81
}