{
  "id": 1911719,
  "name": "Loth v. Mothner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Loth v. Mothner",
  "decision_date": "1890-04-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "116",
  "last_page": "117",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ark. 116"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "78 N. Y., 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        544430
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/78/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N. Y., 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark., 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892038
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/45/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark., 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.682,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.126274661397107e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7651805182464306
    },
    "sha256": "cc9bbe5a050798c59f0f6b590574322e6d34ab91598da9afa0f2a94b2a988aab",
    "simhash": "1:2e9b36226dc29151",
    "word_count": 273
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:25.796000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Loth v. Mothner."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellees gave appellants a written \u2022order on their banker at Texarkana to pay an account. The \u2022order was presented for payment at a time when the bank had money of the drawer for its payment; the payees waived their right to demand cash, and for their own convenience asked payment in St. Louis exchange which was given them. Having elected the mode of payment, they cannot now repudiate it because the exchange proved worthless, but the appellees\u2019 debt is satisfied. Byles on Bills, 389; 7 Barn. & Cres., 19; 3 Ran., Com. Paper, sec. 1551.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arnold & Cook for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Loth v. Mothner.\nDecided April 5, 1890.\nPayment of debt \u2014 Acceptance of bills of exchange as satisfaction.\nWhen a debtor gives his creditor an order on his bank to pay an indebtedness, having money at the bank to pay it on presentation, and the creditor waives the right to demand cash and accepts bills of exchange from the bank in payment, the debt is satisfied, though the exchang proves worthless.\nAPPEAL from Miller Circuit Court.\nC. E. MITCHEL, Judge.\nArnold & Cook for appellants.\nThere was no agreement that the draft should be taken a absolute payment; it was only a conditional payment, an the worthless exchange sent by the bank was not a paymen Tiedeman on Com. Paper, sec. 379; 32 Ark., 740; 45 Ark., 313. See also Randolph, Com. Pap., sec. 1548.\nBy , sending a draft through'the mail to the bank on which it is drawn, the sender does not constitute the bank his agent to receive the proceeds. Tiedeman on Com. Paper, sec. 444; 80 N. Y., 106; 78 N. Y., 269."
  },
  "file_name": "0116-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 141
}