{ "id": 1545345, "name": "Bothell v. Fletcher", "name_abbreviation": "Bothell v. Fletcher", "decision_date": "1910-02-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "100", "last_page": "103", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 Ark. 100" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "41 Ark. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "61 Ark. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902359 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/61/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907407 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ark. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1513830 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/90/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ark. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902359 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/61/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 397, "char_count": 7119, "ocr_confidence": 0.653, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.132382212595898e-07, "percentile": 0.9389696078806139 }, "sha256": "31bfc725037bb2a1a73bdc43cfee066356d9046a6177de4c9bfae4d9982a9e24", "simhash": "1:3acc29e584f18415", "word_count": 1199 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:43.945658+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bothell v. Fletcher." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts). The court erred in permitting any evidence to go to the jury except that which would tend to prove that appellant was not an innocent purchaser for value before maturity. That was the only issue between appellant and appellees, and the evidence should have been confined to that issue.\nTherefore evidence of what the contract was between appellees and the American Jobbing Association was wholly irrelevant and incompetent. It was no concern of appellant, if he was without notice of any fraud, that fhe jewelry for which the acceptances were given was worthless, or that it was the contract between appellees and the American Jobbing Association that the acceptances were not to be assigned or transferred. If appellant had no notice of these things, he could not be affected by them.\nThe above evidence in itself in no manner tended to prove that appellant had notice of these things, and the court should not have permitted it for that purpose.\nA negotiable instrument, as these acceptances were, could 'not be varied in the hands of an innocent holder for value by any contemporaneous oral argreement between the original parties to it that it should not be negotiated.\nThe bona tide character of a holder of negotiable paper can be destroyed only by proof of his knowledge (or facts of which he would have to take notice) of some defects or fraud in connection with the execution of the instrument rendering same invalid in the hands of the payee and of his purchase thereof notwithstanding such knowledge. In such case he would not be an innocent holder, even if he paid value and had the instrument transferred to him before maturity. But otherwise he would be. Thompson v. Love, 61 Ark. 81; Hogg v. Thurman, 90 Ark. 93.\nThe maker of a note or acceptance given in payment or settlement of an account can not set up,, when sued by an innocent holder, that the note or acceptance was procured through fraud or mistake. Lanier v. Union Mortgage & Trust Company, 64 Ark. 39, 53.\nIn the absence of any evidence first tending to show that appellant was not an innocent purchaser of these acceptances (and we find none in this record), the court should not have permitted any testimony as to the fraudulent character of the account or transaction out of which the acceptances originated. Upon the evidence adduced the instructions of the court were abstract. The appellant was entitled to a verdict.\nFor the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "The appellant, pro se.", "Walker & Walker, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bothell v. Fletcher.\nOpinion delivered February 14, 1910.\n1. Bills and notes \u2014 innocent purchaser \u2014 defense.\u2014A promissory note in the hands of an innocent holder will not be affected by any fraud in its execution or by a contemporaneous oral agreement that it shall not be negotiable. (Page 102.)\n2. Same \u2014 innocent purchaser \u2014 defense.\u2014One who purchases negotiable paper before maturity for value without notice, actual or constructive, at the time of purchase, of any defect in its execution, will be held an innocent purchaser. .(Page 103.)\n3. Same \u2014 innocent purchaser. \u2014 The maker of a negotiable instrument, when sued by an innocent holder, cannot set up that it was procured by fraud. (Page 103.)\nAppeal from Washington Circuit Court; Joseph S. Maples, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis was a suit by appellant against the appellees on four negotiable instruments, acceptances, dated February 5, 1906, and executed by appellees to the American Jobbing Association, and by it assigned to the appellant before due. The suit was begun in a justice\u2019s court. There were no written pleadings.\nAppellant testified in substance that he was in the loan and brokerage business in Iowa City, Iowa; that the American Jobbing Association applied to him to discount some paper; that he discounted the acceptances in suit twelve per cent, and paid cash for same; that he bought them in the usual and ordinary course of business, and took the instruments, less the discount, at just what the instruments purported on their face to be. The paper was purchased by him in the manner aforesaid, and was trausferred to him by the payee April 20, 1906. The acceptances were due in ten, thirteen, sixteen and eighteen months, respectively. There were two other notes or acceptances in the purchase for the same amounts, due, respectively, in four and seven months, which appellees paid about the time they were due. The original acceptances were introduced in evidence, and by agreement they have been brought here for the inspection of the court. On the back of each acceptance is its number. On 3408 is the following: \u201cBank \u2014 Farmers and Stobaugh. Address, Springdale, Arkansas. Apr. 20, Pay to the order of C. Bothell. American Jobbing Association, by C. H. Dayton, Mgr.\u201d Then there are further indorsements which have been erased by pen and ink marks across them as follows: \u201cPay to order of Johnson County Sav. Bank, Iowa City, Iowa. C. Bothell. Pay any bank or banker order, Johnson County Savings Bank, Iowa City, Iowa. Geo. D. Falk, Cashier.\u201d The other notes have similar indorsements.\nThe appellant testified that he never had any connection with the American Jobbing Association; that he found by inquiring of the banks that they were buying this paper, and that it was satisfactory to them, so he purchased it. He gave his check for the money used in purchasing the paper, and the check was in evidence. He was not personally acquainted with the makers, and had no knowledge of their financial standing.\nThe court permitted appellees, over the objection of appellant, to show that the acceptances were given for certain articles of jewelry purchased by appellees from the Americah Jobbing Association; also to show, over appellant\u2019s objection, that the jewelry was worthless, and that the acceptances were given with the understanding at the time between the payee and appellees that they were not to be assigned or transferred.\nThe bill of exceptions recites: \u201cDefendant calls attention. of the jury to the indorsement on the acceptances \u2014 the color of the ink, dates, etc., showing that all of the indorsements were made at the same time.\u201d\nThe appellant testified, among other things, \u201cthat the acceptances were not sold to him without recourse,\u201d that \u201cthe acceptances show just what the indorsement was on them,\u201d that the American Jobbing Association was solvent at the time the transfer of the accept\u00e1nces was made. \u2018\nThe appellant, pro se.\nAppellant was a bona tide holder for value. He purchased in good faith before maturity for a valuable consideration without notice of any defense. 61 Ark. 81-6-7; 64 Id. 39-53; Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 512. An innocent purchaser or bona tide holder of a note is not affected by want of consideration, or other equity between the original parties. 41 Ark. 243; 64 Id. 39; 65 Id. 543.\nWalker & Walker, for appellees.\nThe question whether appellant was o'r not a bona tide holder was properly submitted to the jury. The jury were authorized from the evidence to discredit his testimony and find that he was a party to the \u201cjob\u201d put up on appellees." }, "file_name": "0100-01", "first_page_order": 122, "last_page_order": 125 }