{
  "id": 1723956,
  "name": "Federal Factors, Inc. v. Wellbanke",
  "name_abbreviation": "Federal Factors, Inc. v. Wellbanke",
  "decision_date": "1966-09-19",
  "docket_number": "5-3942",
  "first_page": "44",
  "last_page": "46",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 44"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "406 S.W.2d 712"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "228 Ark. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723611
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/228/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S. W. 1037",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ark. 1160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726112
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/173/1160-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 3375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.183066406681502e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5891098284108456
    },
    "sha256": "2c6f823e2a36d016b3fa34f50d7b229940a0609104f8cfe7505405207d2fb20d",
    "simhash": "1:5b0480c46cb9ef90",
    "word_count": 544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Federal Factors, Inc. v. Wellbanke"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant, claiming to be a holder in due course, brought this action to enforce three instruments, entitled Trade Acceptances, executed by the appellee Wellbanke and by Richard J. Martin. Wellbanke contended that the instruments were not negotiable and that he was therefore entitled to interpose in his defense certain breaches of contract on the part of the drawer, Chemical Products, Inc. The trial court, sitting without a jury, sustained Wellbanke\u2019s contentions. Negotiability is now the main issue.\nIn October 1962 Wellbanke and Martin signed a contract by which they became exclusive local dealers for Chemical Products. In the contract they agreed to purchase a quantity of merchandise, which was to be shipped to them for resale. At the trial Wellbanke testified that Chemical Products violated certain oral assurances that its agent had given, sucli as a promise to prepay the freight on the shipment and a promise not to transfer or assign the Trade Acceptances to anyone else.\nThe three instruments, evidencing the unpaid purchase price, were alike except for serial numbers and dates of maturity. Apart from inessential matters such as the drawer\u2019s telephone number, the instruments were in this form:\nChemical Products Incorporated Salt Lake City, Utah\nNo. 687 October 5, 1962.\nOn November 10, 1962 Pay to the order of Chemical Products Inc. Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-two and no/100 Dollars ($2,432.00).\nThe transaction which gives rise to this instrument is the purchase of goods by the acceptor from the drawer.\nChemical Products Inc.\nBy Bob Ghron\nAccepted at Conway, Ark. on Oct. 5, 1962.\nPayable at First National Bank\nBank Location Conway, Ark.\nBuyer\u2019s Signature Joe Wellbanke\n& Richard J. Martin\nNeither the trial court nor the appellee\u2019s attorney has suggested any reason for holding the instruments to be nonnegotiable. To the contrary, they contain all the elements of negotiability specified by the Uniform Commercial Code. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-3-104 (Add. 1961). The mere reference to the transaction giving rise to the instruments does not affect negotiability. Trice v. People\u2019s Loan & Inv. Co., 173 Ark. 1160, 293 S. W. 1037 (1927); Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-3-119. In view of the undisputed proof that the plaintiff was a holder in due course it took the instruments free from the defenses relied upon by Wellbanke. Section 85-3-305.\nUpon remand it is possible, although unlikely, that one other matter may arise. 'The appellant insists that \u25a0the appellee\u2019s failure to answer requests for admissions of fact within ten days, as requested, had the effect of admitting the truth of the requests. Counsel for the appellee states in his brief that he was given an extension of time -for answering the requests. No such extension, h'owey'e-r, appears in the record. Unless the asserted 'extension is proved the requests must be taken to have been admitted. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-358; see White River Limestone Products Co. v. Missouri-Pac. R. R., 228 Ark. 697, 310 S. W. 2d 3 (1958). In' all probability, however, the negotiability of the Trade Acceptances makes this matter immaterial.\nBe versed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Files, Davidson & Plaster and Paul Henson, for appellant.",
      "Guy H. Jones, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Federal Factors, Inc. v. Wellbanke\n5-3942\n406 S. W. 2d 712\nOpinion delivered September 19, 1966\n[Rehearing denied October 24, 1966.]\nFiles, Davidson & Plaster and Paul Henson, for appellant.\nGuy H. Jones, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0044-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}