Continental Gin Co. v. Benton

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Continental Gin Co. v. Benton

149 S.W. 528, 104 Ark. 367, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 298

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJuly 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 149 S.W. 528 (Continental Gin Co. v. Benton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Continental Gin Co. v. Benton, 149 S.W. 528, 104 Ark. 367, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 298 (Ark. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is contended that the court erred in the refusal to give said instruction numbered 4, and that there is no testimony to sustain the verdict.

There is no doubt but that, under ordinary conditions, it devolves upon the party pleading payment as a defense to prove it. Hayes v. Dickey, 67 Ark. 169; Blass v. Lawhorn, 64 Ark. 466.

It is also true that possession of a promissory note by the maker is presumptive evidence of its payment, and that, although receipts of payment are prima facie evidence thereof, they are open -to explanation and contradiction, but the burden of overcoming the presumption and prima facie case and making the explanation devolves upon the party giving the receipt, and surrendering the note. Springfield & M. Rd. Co. v. Allen, 46 Ark. 217; Real Estate Bank v. Rawdon, 5 Ark. 559; Greer v. Laws, 56 Ark. 37; Woodward v. Campbell, 39 Ark. 580, 583; Hollenberg v. Lane, 47 Ark. 394; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Click, 93 Ark. 162.

The court correctly instructed the jury that the question for them to decide was whether or not the note had been paid, and that when it was shown that it had been marked “Paid” by appellant and delivered to appellee, appellant, to avoid the result of this receipt of payment on the ground of mistake, had the burden of proof to overcome the presumption of payment by a preponderance of the testimony.

The sole question, as the court said, to be determined by the jury was whether or not the note had been paid, and appellant, having alleged its cancellation and delivery to the maker by mistake, and that it had not in fact been paid, could not have recovered in the case but for the introduction of testimony, and the burdén of proof was therefore upon it to establish its claim, and its testimony all tended to show that such was the fact, but appellee testified that he had paid the note by a check, and the jury found in his favor; and while the testimony is not satisfactory, we can not say that there is none sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Appellant having, by its pleadings, assumed the burden of proof to show that there was no payment of the note but a mistake in the delivery thereof to the maker marked “Paid,” the issue was fairly submitted to the jury by the instructions given, and the court did not commit error in refusing appellant’s requested instruction numbered 4. Hollenberg v. Lane, 47 Ark. 394.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is contended that the court erred in the refusal to give said instruction numbered 4, and that there is no testimony to sustain the verdict.

There is no doubt but that, under ordinary conditions, it devolves upon the party pleading payment as a defense to prove it. Hayes v. Dickey, 67 Ark. 169; Blass v. Lawhorn, 64 Ark. 466.

It is also true that possession of a promissory note by the maker is presumptive evidence of its payment, and that, although receipts of payment are prima facie evidence thereof, they are open -to explanation and contradiction, but the burden of overcoming the presumption and prima facie case and making the explanation devolves upon the party giving the receipt, and surrendering the note. Springfield & M. Rd. Co. v. Allen, 46 Ark. 217; Real Estate Bank v. Rawdon, 5 Ark. 559; Greer v. Laws, 56 Ark. 37; Woodward v. Campbell, 39 Ark. 580, 583; Hollenberg v. Lane, 47 Ark. 394; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Click, 93 Ark. 162.

The court correctly instructed the jury that the question for them to decide was whether or not the note had been paid, and that when it was shown that it had been marked “Paid” by appellant and delivered to appellee, appellant, to avoid the result of this receipt of payment on the ground of mistake, had the burden of proof to overcome the presumption of payment by a preponderance of the testimony.

The sole question, as the court said, to be determined by the jury was whether or not the note had been paid, and appellant, having alleged its cancellation and delivery to the maker by mistake, and that it had not in fact been paid, could not have recovered in the case but for the introduction of testimony, and the burdén of proof was therefore upon it to establish its claim, and its testimony all tended to show that such was the fact, but appellee testified that he had paid the note by a check, and the jury found in his favor; and while the testimony is not satisfactory, we can not say that there is none sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Appellant having, by its pleadings, assumed the burden of proof to show that there was no payment of the note but a mistake in the delivery thereof to the maker marked “Paid,” the issue was fairly submitted to the jury by the instructions given, and the court did not commit error in refusing appellant’s requested instruction numbered 4. Hollenberg v. Lane, 47 Ark. 394.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.W. 528, 104 Ark. 367, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-gin-co-v-benton-ark-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack