{
  "id": 8717266,
  "name": "FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN BLYTHEVILLE v. ELLIS GIN COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "First National Bank in Blytheville v. Ellis Gin Co.",
  "decision_date": "1979-06-18",
  "docket_number": "79-20",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 11"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "582 S.W.2d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "187 S.W. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ark. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1553235
      ],
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/125/0006-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3338,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20847450951773636
    },
    "sha256": "be18ff869991aa667d22673a010fa4755461f1b6699e3c5f5ecab1cd0e71d441",
    "simhash": "1:3074e0b22326a93e",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN BLYTHEVILLE v. ELLIS GIN COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nOn January 12, 1976, the appellee gin company issued a check for $6,453.57 to Charles Smallwood in payment for 46 bales of cotton. The next day Smallwood presented the check to his bank, the appellant, receiving most of the proceeds in cash and depositing the rest to his account. Before the check reached the drawee bank, another bank in Blytheville, the gin company stopped payment on the check, because a production credit association had a lien on the cotton and should have been made a joint payee of the check. The gin company issued a new check, payable jointly, which Smallwood apparently indorsed and turned over to the PCA.\nAlmost two years later the appellant brought this suit against the gin company to recover the appellant\u2019s net loss on the check. The appellee pleaded a novation as a defense, in that the bank had accepted Smallwood\u2019s promissory note in place of the check. This appeal is from a decree sustaining the gin company\u2019s defense.\nThe parties agree that the appellant was a holder in due course, so that the appellee was required to establish a defense to the suit. One form of novation occurs when by mutual agreement a new obligation is substituted for an existing one. Elkins v. Henry Vogt Machine Co., 125 Ark. 6, 187 S.W. 663 (1916). Here the question is whether the chancellor\u2019s finding that a novation occurred is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nFor several months after the original transaction the appellant bank tried to collect the amount of its loss from Smallwood. The witness Tomlinson, an officer of the bank, talked almost daily to Smallwood, who was trying to get a Farm Administration loan to repay the bank. Finally, on April 30, 1976, the bank took a promissory note for the amount of its net loss, $6,098.05, plus interest of $119.08. Both Smallwood and his wife signed not only the note but also a companion real estate mortgage, which was actually only a third lien on the land. Tomlinson testified that the gin company\u2019s check at first was carried on the bank\u2019s books as a cash asset. When the Smallwood note was received the cash item was wiped out on the books, and the principal amount of the note was reflected on the books as a charge to loans and discounts. Smallwood testified that when the note and mortgage were signed Tomlinson offered to give him the gin company\u2019s check, but when Smallwood said he didn\u2019t know what he was going to do with it, Tomlinson said, \u201cI will just keep it.\u201d The bank still had the check when the suit was filed.\nPerhaps the view could be taken that the bank\u2019s acceptance of the Smallwoods\u2019 note and mortgage was not intended as a substitution for the bank\u2019s claim against the gin company. But when we consider that the note and mortgage were in an amount different from that of the check, that Mrs. Smallwood signed the note and mortgage, that the note replaced the gin company\u2019s check on the bank\u2019s books, and that the bank offered to return the check to Smallwood when the note was accepted, we cannot say that the chancellor\u2019s finding of a novation is clearly against the weight of the proof.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parllow & Mayes, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Gardner & Steinsiek, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN BLYTHEVILLE v. ELLIS GIN COMPANY, INC.\n79-20\n582 S.W. 2d 271\nOpinion delivered June 18, 1979\n(In Banc)\nParllow & Mayes, P.A., for appellant.\nGardner & Steinsiek, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 37,
  "last_page_order": 39
}