55 Ark. 546
Decided March 12, 1892
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1892-03-12
John M. Elliott, Judge. Appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The plaintiff alleges the loss of the notes, but that they were still due and unpaid; this was denied by defendant. Upon this state of facts the onus was'on defendant to show payment. Where loss is alleged and non-payment affirmed, the defendant when she pleads payment, must so show, or fail. 29 Ark., 74; 21 W. Va., 183; 55 Vt., 352.
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1915
4 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1892-03-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1It was necessary for the appellant either to produce the note or to account for it, in order to show that he was entitled to collect it. The allegation that it was lost was material. Norris v. Kellogg, 7 Ark., 118. That allegation was denied by the answer, it was not proved upon the trial, and the note was not produced. If there were no other reason for dismissing the complaint, that would be .sufficient.
¶2Affirm.