Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin

21 S.W. 468, 57 Ark. 277, 1893 Ark. LEXIS 81

DecidedFebruary 11, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 21 S.W. 468 (Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin) 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

Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin, 21 S.W. 468, 57 Ark. 277, 1893 Ark. LEXIS 81 (Ark. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BATTLE, J.

This was an action on a note in the following words and figures :

“Saline Co., Ark., January 17, 18 — .

“On or before the-first day of November, 1889, I promise to pay L. Cahill & Co., or bearer, seventy dollars, at Bank of Little Rock, value received. If paid at maturity, interest at eight per cent, from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at-per cent, per annum from date until paid. No promise or contract outside of this note will be recognized.

(Signed)

S. R. Martin.

J. W. Huey.”

The defense was, the note had been materially altered since it was executed. The second sentence in the note as executed read as follows: “If paid at maturity, interest at -per cent from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at per cent, per annum from date until paid.” It was altered to read : “If paid at maturity, interest at eight per cent, from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at-- per cent, per annum from date until paid.”

The defendants recovered judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

Appellant insists that the alteration of the note had no legal effect, and was therefore immaterial. It is said in its abstract that this was the only issue. Was the legal effect of the note affected by the alteration ?

Allowing days of grace, this note was due on the 4th of November, 1889. If paid at maturity, the note as executed'bore no interest, but as altered, eight per cent, per annum from the first of November, 1889, until the 4th of the same month. Wheeless v. Williams, 62 Miss. 369; S. C. 52 Am. Rep. 190; Bank of Utica v. Wager, 2 Cow. 712. The difference is slight, but the maxim, De minimis non curat lex, is not applicable to cases like this. The alteration made the note void. Craighead v. McLoney (Pa.), 14 Cent. Law J. 192; Stephens v. Graham, 7 S. & R. 505; Kennedy v. Lancaster County Bank, 18 Pa. St. 347.

Affirmed.

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

BATTLE, J.

This was an action on a note in the following words and figures :

“Saline Co., Ark., January 17, 18 — .

“On or before the-first day of November, 1889, I promise to pay L. Cahill & Co., or bearer, seventy dollars, at Bank of Little Rock, value received. If paid at maturity, interest at eight per cent, from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at-per cent, per annum from date until paid. No promise or contract outside of this note will be recognized.

(Signed)

S. R. Martin.

J. W. Huey.”

The defense was, the note had been materially altered since it was executed. The second sentence in the note as executed read as follows: “If paid at maturity, interest at -per cent from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at per cent, per annum from date until paid.” It was altered to read : “If paid at maturity, interest at eight per cent, from November 1, 1889 ; but if not paid when due, interest at-- per cent, per annum from date until paid.”

The defendants recovered judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

Appellant insists that the alteration of the note had no legal effect, and was therefore immaterial. It is said in its abstract that this was the only issue. Was the legal effect of the note affected by the alteration ?

Allowing days of grace, this note was due on the 4th of November, 1889. If paid at maturity, the note as executed'bore no interest, but as altered, eight per cent, per annum from the first of November, 1889, until the 4th of the same month. Wheeless v. Williams, 62 Miss. 369; S. C. 52 Am. Rep. 190; Bank of Utica v. Wager, 2 Cow. 712. The difference is slight, but the maxim, De minimis non curat lex, is not applicable to cases like this. The alteration made the note void. Craighead v. McLoney (Pa.), 14 Cent. Law J. 192; Stephens v. Graham, 7 S. & R. 505; Kennedy v. Lancaster County Bank, 18 Pa. St. 347.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.W. 468, 57 Ark. 277, 1893 Ark. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-rock-trust-co-v-martin-ark-1893.

Opinion

S. R. Martin.

J. W. Huey.”

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack