Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Ark. 575

Wyatt v. Wallace

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 10, 1900

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1900-03-10

March 10, 1898, appellant brought suit in the circuit court against appellees on a negotiable promissory note for $282; executed by them at Rogers, Ark., December 28, 1896, to one J. 0. Grenamyer, and indorsed in blank by Grenamyer. The note is copied in the findings of the court. The plaintiff alleged that the note was transferred to him by Grenamyer for a valuable consideration, and that he immediately notified the makers of the transfer.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Section 1. That hereafter any vendor of any patented machine, implement, substance, or insi rument of any kind, or character whatsoever, when the said vendor of the same effects the sale of the same to any citizen of this state on a credit, and takes any character of negotiable instrument, in payment of the same, the said negotiable instrument shall be executed upon a printed form, and show upon its face that it was executed in consideration of a patented machine, implement, substance or instrument, as Uie case may he, and no person shall be considered an innocent holder of the same, though he may hare given value for 1lie same before maturity, and the maker thereof may make defense to the collection of the same in the hands of any holder of said negotiable instrument, and all such notes not showing on their face for what they were given shall be absolutely void. “8ec. 2. That the foregoing section shall also apply to vendors of patent rights, and family rights to use any patented thing of any character whatever. “Sec. 3. That any vendor of any patented tiling ol' any character, or any vendor of any patented right or family right to use any patented thing of any character whatsoever, who shall violate the provisions of section one of this act, shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars. “Sec. 4. 'This act shall not apply to merchants and dealers who sell patented things in the usual course of business. “Sec. 5. This act shall take effe”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Union County Nat. Bank of Liberty, Ind. v. Ozan Lumber Co.

““This act is plain and emphatic. The note sued on in this case was void for noncompliance with section 493 of the statute quoted above. The note could not be the basis of recovery in this suit. As an evidence of indebtedness, it wás void under section 493.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Union County Nat. Bank of Liberty, Ind. v. Ozan Lumber Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1929

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

110190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) Sec. 493, Sandels & Hill’s Digest, provides that “any vendor of any patented machine, implement, substance or instrument of any kind or character whatever, when the vendor of the same effects the sale of the same to any citizen of this state on a credit, and takes any character of negotiable instrument in payment of the same, the said negotiable instrument shall be executed on a printed form,-and show upon its face that it was exeuted in consideration of a patented machine, implement, substance or instrument, as the”case may be, and no person shall be considered an innocent holder of the same, though he may have given value for the same before maturity, and the maker thereof may make such defense to the collection of the same in the hands of any holder of said negotiable instrument, and all such notes, not showing on their face for what they were given, shall be absolutely void.”

¶2Sec. 494, Sandels & Hill’s Digest. “The foregoing section shall also apply to vendors of patent rights, and family rights to use any patented thing of any character whatever.”

¶3Sec. 495. “Any vendor of any patented thing of any character, or any vendor of any patent right or family right to use any patented thing of any character whatsoever, who shall violate the provisions of section 493, shall, upon conviction, be •punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.”

¶4Sec. 496. “This act shall not apply to merchants and dealers who sell patented things in the usual course of business.”

¶5This act is plain and emphatic. The note sued on in this case was void for non-compliance with section 493 of the statute quoted above. The note could not be the basis of recovery in this suit. As an evidence of indebtedness, it was void under section 493.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

/67/ark/575 · .json · Public domain