Skillern v. Arkansas Woolen Mills

91 S.W. 303, 77 Ark. 172, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 193
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedDecember 2, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.W. 303 (Skillern v. Arkansas Woolen Mills) 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
Skillern v. Arkansas Woolen Mills, 91 S.W. 303, 77 Ark. 172, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 193 (Ark. 1905).

Opinion

Battle, J.

J. H. Skillern, as receiver of the assets of the Howard County Bank, an insolvent bank, brought an action against the Arkansas Woolen Mills, a corporation organized under the laws of this State, to recover the amount due on four promissory notes purporting to be exécuted by the defendant, and the sum of $908.25 paid on checks, purporting to be drawn by the defendant on the bank. The defendant answered, and denied that it executed the notes, and that it was indebted to the bank on any note or for money advanced to it on checks in any sum whatever. The defendant recovered judgment.

The defendant owned a mill, and in May, 1901, leased the entire “plant” to D. P. Terry, who was the cashier and managing officer of the bank, James J. Gebhart, and Ike Bowenberg, for the remainder of the year 1901. The lessees took possession of the mill, and operated it in the name of the lessor for their own account, and for their personal benefit. They kept an account with the bank in the name of the lessor, and transacted their business in its name. They overdrew the amount to their credit, and at the instance of Terry, one of the lessees and the cashier of the bank, and without authority of the defendant, executed the notes sued on for the balance due the bank at different times. The indebtedness of $908.25 was contracted in the same manner. The bank, through its cashier, and managing officer, had notice of all the foregoing facts as they occurred, and was not misled. The. defendant is not estopped from taking advantage of them, and is not indebted to the bank by reason of them.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Little Red River Levee District No. 2 v. Garrett
242 S.W. 555 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Goldstein v. Union National Bank
213 S.W. 584 (Texas Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.W. 303, 77 Ark. 172, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skillern-v-arkansas-woolen-mills-ark-1905.