{
  "id": 1527133,
  "name": "Farmers' Loan & Trust Company v. Shumate",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Shumate",
  "decision_date": "1907-07-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 Ark. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 Ark. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1902359
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/61/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3769,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.674,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05714155535708838
    },
    "sha256": "b7adb078d9186fbceeeec753d72b9cc1de45a8770b034dda52e7429de7fe706f",
    "simhash": "1:afef8cfb54e7586a",
    "word_count": 625
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:46.217267+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Farmers\u2019 Loan & Trust Company v. Shumate."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThis action was instituted by the Farmers\u2019 Loan & Trust Company against J. T. Shumate & Company before a justice of the peace, and was taken by appeal to the White Circuit Court. It was based on a promissory note executed by the defendant to the order of the Equitable Manufacturing Company for the sum of $146.70, was dated October 16th, 1902, and was-\u25a0due and -payable fourteen months after date, and was transferred before due by the payee -to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased the note for value in due course of business before maturity. Its execution or validity is not denied, except that defendants say that -at the time it was executed the Equitable-Manufacturing. Company, the payee in the note sued on, executed! to them a guaranty in the following words:\n\u201cWe guaranty sales from our draft advertisement and catalog advertisement to reach three-fourths of amount of the bill by the 12-25 \u2019day, 1903, or we take back the goods, and, should sales not equal three-fourths amount of bill by the 12-25, 19\u00b03> then we hereby agree to relieve customer of.all stock on hand and credit his notes with same at invoice price. Customer executing his notes, to our salesman for one-fourth the amount in six months, and .three-fourths the -amount in three months without interest; all notes except the first must be kept at the home office until the 12-25, I9\u00b03- Should sales not reach the amount above mentioned, then notes shall become null and void and not collectable. Order sheet herewith attached hereby becomes a part of the contract, and subject to conditions herein named. Salesman has no authority, to make any agreement not written or printed .herein.\n\u201cEquitable Manufacturing Company,\n\u201cL. B. Jackson, Salesman.\u201d\nAnd at the same time executed to them the following obligation : . . .\n\u201c$100.00 9-3, 1902.\n\u201cTwelve months after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of J. T. Shumate .and Company one hundred dollars.\n\u201cEquitable Manufacturing Company.\n\u201cThis note is given as a guaranty of profit, and, should customer not realize profit stipulated, this note becomes payable at maturity; should customer realize profit guarantied, this note must be surrendered at maturity. \u2022\n\u201cL. B. Jackson, Agent.\u201d\nWe fail to find in the record any evidence that the defendants made any effort to sell the goods mentioned in the guaranty or three-fourths .thereof before the 25th day of December, 1903, the time stipulated in contract.\nThe jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and plaintiff appealed.\nBefore the appellees could recover on the guaranty, it was. incumbent upon them to show that they made a bona fide effort to sell the goods or three-fourths thereof within the time stipulated, and failed to do so. The goods could not sell themselves.\nThere were other questions discussed which we deem unnecessary to decide.\nReverse and remand for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. N. Rachels, for appellant.",
      "Stuckey & Stuckey, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Farmers\u2019 Loan & Trust Company v. Shumate.\nOpinion delivered July 15, 1907.\nGuaranty or promts \u2014 construction.\u2014Where a vendor of merchandise executed a guaranty that the vendee\u2019s sales would reach three-fourths of the bill, and that, should they fail to do so within a certain time, the vendor would relieve him of the stock on hand and credit his notes with same at invoice prices, before the vendee can recover on such guaranty he must 'show that he made a bona fide effort to sell the goods within the stipulated time and failed to do so.\nAppeal from White Circuit Court; Hanc\u00e9 N. Hutton, Judge;\nreversed.\nJ. N. Rachels, for appellant.\nAppellant bought the note before maturity, without notice, and was an innocent holder for value, and cannot be defeated by proof of contemporaneous agreements. 61 Ark. 81; 65 Id. 204.\nStuckey & Stuckey, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 442,
  "last_page_order": 444
}