{
  "id": 8724737,
  "name": "John A. RAUCH v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK in Little Rock",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rauch v. First National Bank in Little Rock",
  "decision_date": "1968-05-21",
  "docket_number": "5-4510",
  "first_page": "941",
  "last_page": "943",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 Ark. 941"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "428 S.W.2d 89"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 3337,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5691274255245865e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6783756504722862
    },
    "sha256": "48fa91f55b3ed7eb3f35475ec561c547f8ca67d3cf799bfef8999f946936fd31",
    "simhash": "1:ab3fcb1550562ce6",
    "word_count": 551
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:25.068679+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Ward, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "John A. RAUCH v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK in Little Rock"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nJohn A. Rauch appeals from a judgment in favor of appellee First National Bank in Little Rock upon a guaranty signed by Rauch to accommodate John L. Copeland, Jr. For reversal he contends that his signature on the guaranty was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Finley Vinson, officer of the First National Bank; that the note or other instrument executed by John L. Copeland, Jr., was void under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1604 (Repl. 1962,) having been executed for payment of a gambling obligation ; and that, since the bank waived its rights as to the guaranty of Barron Lange upon the same indebtedness, it thereby waived its rights as to appellant Rauch under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-3-606 (Add. 1961).\nThe record shows that John L. Copeland, Jr., when the guaranty agreement was executed, was manager of tlie Riverdale 'Country Club and bad gotten into financial troubles because of some gambling losses. He approached Mr. Finley Vinson of the First National Bank relative to an $11,000 loan, which the bank refused to make upon the security offered. Subsequently Mr. Copeland informed Mr. Vinson that Rauch, William E. Darby, William S. Miller, Jr., and Barron Lange would sign, his note. Pursuant to a conversation between Vinson and each of the guarantors a separate guaranty instrument was drawn for each party. Rauch\u2019s guaranty agreement covered $4,250; Darby\u2019s $4,250; Miller\u2019s $1,-500; and Lange\u2019s $1,000. Upon execution of the agreements a total of $11,000 was disbursed, and the record indicates that some of the money was used to pay off gambling debts that Copeland had incurred. Barron Lange died while Copeland\u2019s payments were current and the time for filing claims against his estate expired before Copeland defaulted.\nRauch bases his claim of fraudulent misrepresentation upon the allegation that Vinson assured him the bank had sufficient collateral to cover the $11,000 note. Needless to say, Rauch\u2019s testimony was controverted by Vinson\u2019s, and under the circumstances we must hold that there was substantial testimony to support the verdict of the trial court sitting as a jury.\nWe find no merit in Rauch\u2019s contention that Copeland\u2019s obligation was void under \u00a7 34-1604, supra. A close reading of that statute shows that it voids obligations only where the money is \u201clent to be bet.at any gaming or gambling device. \u2019 \u2019 There is no testimony here showing that the money was lent for purposes of gambling.\nThe bank\u2019s release or failure to claim against Lange\u2019s estate had no effect upon Rauch\u2019s guaranty because he specifically agreed that he would be liable notwithstanding a release of any other guarantor. Section 85-3-606, supra, recognizes that the release of one guarantor does not release another when the release is made with the consent of the latter. We know of no reason why the consent given by Ranch at the execution of the agreement should not be binding.\nAppellee filed in this court a claim for additional attorney\u2019s fee. We grant an attorney\u2019s fee which, when added to that allowed by the trial court, does not exceed 10 per cent of the principal plus accrued interest.\nAffirmed.\nWard, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John A. RAUCH v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK in Little Rock\n5-4510\n428 S. W. 2d 89\nOpinion delivered May 21, 1968\nSmith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0941-01",
  "first_page_order": 967,
  "last_page_order": 969
}