{
  "id": 8724605,
  "name": "Williams v. Layes",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Layes",
  "decision_date": "1925-04-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "675",
  "last_page": "677",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ark. 675"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "166 Ark. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1378531
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/166/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 5988,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.704233622947175e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49323898806455513
    },
    "sha256": "d1abd249e0be762ddf35a1b0a817f9d784710c83c04e03ca301420f4b4c32668",
    "simhash": "1:391982d54c866403",
    "word_count": 1025
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:28.689459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Williams v. Layes."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUMPHREYS, J.\nAppellant brought this suit in the Northern District of the Circuit Court of Logan County, against appellee, to recover judgment upon a note executed on February 7, 1922, by appellee, to the order of (dinners \u2019 Compress Trust of Milwaukee, Wis., in the sum of $1,000, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from date, which had been assigned to him for a valuable consideration before maturity.\nAppellee filed an answer admitting the execution of the note, but alleging its invalidity because given in consideration for a complete double system cotton press with condenser, for baling cotton in round bales, a patented thing, in violation of \u00a7 7956 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, which is as follows:\n\u201cAny vendor of any patented machine, implement, substance, or instrument of any kind or character whatever, when the said vendor of the same effects the sale of the same to any citizen of this State, on credit, and makes any character of negotiable instrument in payment of the same, the said negotiable instrument shall be executed on a printed form, and show npon its face that it was executed in consideration of a patented machine, implement, substance or instrument, as the case may he, and no person shall he considered an innocent holder of the same, though he may have given value for the same before maturity, and the maker thereof may make defense to the collection of the same in the hands of any holder of said negotiable instrument, and all such notes not showing on their face for what they were given shall be absolutely void.\u201d\nAppellant filed a reply alleging: first, that the navee in the note was a regular merchant or dealer, and sold the patented thing to appellee in the regular course of business, and was excepted from the provisions of the statute quoted above \u00a7 7959 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, which is as follows: \u2018 \u2018 This act shall not apply to merchants and dealers who sell patented things in the usual course of business.\u201d And second, that appellee was estopped from repudiating the note by making the following statement to appellant before he paid for the note, towit: \u201cIf nothing bad happens, I am for sure that I will be able to pay the note when due, or before, which I hope I will.\u201d\nThe cause was submitted to the jury upon the pleadings, testimony adduced by the respective parties, and the instructions of the court, which resulted in a verdict for appellee, and a consequent judgment dismissing the complaint of appellant, from which is this appeal.\nThe record reflects the following facts: The note was executed in part payment for a patented cotton press to the manufacturer thereof, a Wisconsin corporation, that sold same to appellee through its traveling agent, who was president of said corporation. The patented machine was sold directly from the facto^. For some reason not appearing, the press was never delivered to appellee. The note did not show on its face that it was executed for a patented thing. Appellant purchased the note and procured an assignment thereof, and, before sending a check in payment of it, he wrote a letter to appellee to ascertain whether the note would be paid, in which he stated that he did not know the payee in the note, and was relying for payment thereof on appellee. He requested, in the letter, that appellee reply on the bottom of the letter, and return same to him. The reply to appellee appears in the reply appellant filed to appel-lee\u2019s answer, heretofore set out. After receiving appel-lee\u2019s reply, appellant mailed a check to dinners\u2019 Cotton Compress in payment of the note.\nAppellant first contends for a reversal of-the judgment because the patented machine was sold by a merchant or dealer to appellee in the regular course of business. We do not think the manufacturer and the seller of the patented cotton haler was included in the class of business permitted by \u00a7 7959 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest to sell patented things and accept negotiable notes in payment thereof which do not show on their face that, they were in consideration of patented machines, etc. The persons referred to in that section are regular merchants or dealers-in the mercantile business.\nAppellant\u2019s next and last contention for a reversal of the judgment is that appellee estopped himself from interposing his statutory right of defense to the note by writing appellant that he was sure that he would be able to pay the note before or when due, if nothing bad happened. Under \u00a7 7956 of Crawford & Moses \u2019 Digest, this note was void because it was not stated in the face thereof' that it was given for a patented thing. This court is committed to the doctrine that contracts made in violation of law are not converted into valid obligations by subsequent promises to perform them, and that the maker of a void note will not estop himself from or waive his right to set up the illegality thereof as a defense thereto. City National Bank v. DeBaum, 166 Ark. 18.\nNo error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUMPHREYS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kin,cannon & Kmoannon, for appellant.",
      "White \u00e9 White, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Williams v. Layes.\nOpinion delivered April 20, 1925.\n1. Bills and notes \u2014 purchase op patented machine \u2014 \u201cmerchant\u201d defined. \u2014 The manufacturer of a patented cotton press held not a \u201cmerchant,\u201d within Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 7959, so as to be able to accept a negotiable note in payment, without showing on face of the note that it was executed in consideration of a patented machine, as required by \u00a7 7956, a \u201cmerchant\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 7959 being a regular dealer in the mercantile business.\n2. Bills and notes \u2014 illegality op note \u2014 estoppel.\u2014The fact that the maker of a note which was invalid because given in consideration of a patented machine without showing that fact on its face, assured a purchaser of the note that it would be paid at maturity, did not estop him from setting up its illegality as a defense.\nAppeal from.' Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; James Cochran, Judge;\naffirmed.\nKin,cannon & Kmoannon, for appellant.\nWhite \u00e9 White, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0675-01",
  "first_page_order": 693,
  "last_page_order": 695
}