{
  "id": 1559389,
  "name": "Shearer v. Farmers & Merchants Bank",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shearer v. Farmers & Merchants Bank",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "601",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 Ark. 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "81 Ark. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1530674
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "328"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/81/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ark. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1513863
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/90/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ark. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1311104
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/101/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ark. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ark. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1497320
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/78/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ark. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1521472
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/86/0600-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ark. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546854
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724720
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/42/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329170
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1351992
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1351971
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S. W. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Tex. Civ. App. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tex. Civ. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        242334
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tex-civ-app/9/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ala. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5550006
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/91/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1350625
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/104/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ark. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1347036
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/105/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ark. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1344042
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/107/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ark. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1341229
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "130"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/109/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ark. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1337151
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/110/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ark. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ark. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ark. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        609224
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/65/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ark. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1902303
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/61/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ark. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1905703
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/62/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ark. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1316077
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/98/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ark. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1491201
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/80/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ark. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ark. 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1152584
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/67/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ark. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1354033
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/102/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4625,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.685371297493976e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49253547214528726
    },
    "sha256": "a61fddeef330659365da6daa79985b26fa45d18a550eef74416258136557b197",
    "simhash": "1:a4be21a6a5c77fad",
    "word_count": 793
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:38.519565+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Shearer v. Farmers & Merchants Bank."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.\nAppellees recovered judgment against appellant on two promissory notes and from the judgment against him appellant prosecutes this appeal. Appellant admitted the execution of the notes, but' says that he signed them in consideration that the directors of the Farmers & Merchants Bank, of MeCrory, Arkansas, would not prosecute his son-in-law for embezzlement. His son-in-law had been cashier of the bank, and an examination of his books showed that he'was a defaulter, and appellant testified, in short, that he executed the notes sued on in consideration that the directors would not prosecute his son-in-law.\nThe directors testified in behalf of appellee and denied that appellant executed the notes in consideration that his son-in-law would not be prosecuted. They said he signed the notes to settle the indebtedness found to be due by his son-in-law to the bank.\nWe have not attempted to set out the evidence in detail, for the jury were the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and under the settled rule of this court their finding of fact against appellant will not be disturbed on appeal.\nAppellant, in an instruction numbered 2, asked the court to instruct the jury that if they believed from the evidence the notes sued on were signed by appellant under an agreement, express or implied, on the part of the bank officials that his son-in-law would not be prosecuted by the \u00a1bank officials for any felony, the notes were without consideration, and void.\nThe instruction as asked for was correct. See Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 102 Ark. 326. But substantially similar instructions were given 'by the court to the jury and it is well settled that the court need not multiply instructions on the same point.\nAgain, it is the contention of counsel for appellant that the judgment should be reversed on account of certain remarks made by 'Counsel for appellees to the jury. We need not set out these remarks, or consider them, for the record does not show that counsel saved proper exceptions to them.\nIt follows that the judgment must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harry H. Myers, for appellant.",
      "Harry M. Woods, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shearer v. Farmers & Merchants Bank.\nOpinion delivered January 10, 1916.\n1. Bills and notes \u2014 consideration\u2014forbearance to bring criminal prosecution. \u2014 A note signed .by appellant under an .agreement, express or implied, on the part of certain bank officials, that appellant\u2019s son-in-law, who was a .defaulter, would not be prosecuted by the bank officials for any felony, is without consideration, and void.\n2. Instructions \u2014 several instructions on same point. \u2014 The trial court is not obliged to multiply instructions on the same point.\nAppeal from Woodruff Circuit Court, Northern District ; J. M. Jackson, Judge;\n\u00a1affirmed.\nHarry H. Myers, for appellant.\n1. If appellants signed the notes under a promise or .agreement on the part of the bank or its officers that it would not prosecute Keating for embezzlement \u00a1or other felony, ,such notes were without valid consideration, and void. The \u00a1court, therefore, erred in refusing to give instruction 2, requested by appellant. 9 Cyc. 505; Id. Ill; 67 Ark. 480; 46 Ark. 136; 35 Ark. 280 ; 80 Ark. 326; 98 Ark. 274-285; 1 Story on Contracts, \u00a7 569.\n2. Appellee\u2019\u00a1s attorney in his closing argument was permitted to point significantly at the appellant with the remark, \u201cHis light has fled, and his mind is weak,\u201d notwithstanding appellant\u2019s objection thereto; and the fact that there was nothing in the evidence placing his character in issue, nor any reference whatever in the evidence to the 'Condition \u00a1of his mind. This was prejudicial error. 62 Ark. 126; 61 Ark. 130; 65 Ark. 619; 108 Ark. 579; 112 Ark. 453; 110 Ark. 226; 109 Ark. 32; Id. 130; 107 Ark. 469; 105 Ark. 608; Id. 534; 104 Ark. 1; Id. 94; 2 Ene. PI. & Pr. 715, 727; 91 Ala. 76; 9 Tex. Civ. App. 319, 29 S. W. 432; 38 Cyc. 1479; Id. 1487-8; Id. 1494,1498,1503.\nHarry M. Woods, for appellees.\n1. The \u00a1bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by the trial court, the order allowing ninety days\u2019 time for that purpose having been made on February 18, and the bill \u00a1of exceptions being filed on May 20, ninety-one days thereafter. 103 Ark. 569; Id. 44; 103 Ark. 46; 58 Ark. 110; 42 Ark. 488.\n2. Appellant\u2019s abstract of the record is fatally defective in this: (1) It does not show that a motion for new trial was ever filed and denied; (2) it does not set out the instructions given by the court, and (3) it does not show any exceptions saved to the argument of counsel for appellee. 93 Ark. 85-87; 83 Ark. 359; 86 Ark. 600; 78 Ark. 374; 100 Ark. 329; 101 Ark. 207, 209; 90 Ark. 230; 101 Ark. 207; 81 Ark. 327, 328."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 623,
  "last_page_order": 625
}