ARK.] ARKANSAS TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT 'CO. V. MELTON. 513 ARKANSAS TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT COMPANY V. MELTON. 4-4202 • Opinion delivered March 30, 1936. GUARANTY.—in action by purchaser of school district warrant issued without lawful authority, evidence that warrant was purchased under the seller's guaranty that the warrant would be paid in its order, held sufficient to sustain decree of chancellor in favor of purchaser. Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; Frank IL Dodge, Chancellor ; afErmed. Trieber & Lasley i for appellant. W. P. Bedrd, for appellee. SMITH, J. Special School District No. 91 of Lonoke County, through the president and secretary of its board of directors, issueda warrant for $300 payable to the order of W. B. Graham; the president of the school board, in payment of three acres of ground purchased for the use of the colored school in that district. The school dis- trict brought suit to cancel the school warrant, and it was held in that case that the warrant had been 'issued without lawful authority. This suit was brought against the county treasurer and against Graham and the Arkan-sas Tractor & Equipment CompanY, to which colicern Graham had for value indorsed• and assigned the school warrant. J. P. Melton filed an interYerition in which he alleged that he had purchased the warrant from the tractor company under its guaranty that the warrant would be.cashed
514 -[192 and :: redeerned when prior eutstanding and: r.egistered wartants: ISsited by the'district had'first-been paid. 'The court found that the warrant' should be'canceled and held for naught 'as having been issUed without aUthority . .. The court alse 'found`that 'the-intervener had 'Purchased:the warrant under .the 'guaranty of the tractor -coMpany that it would be paid by the . school , district in its..order,..and this appeal by the tractor comPany cinestions- onlY•that finding. This branch of the case was heard on testimony which cannot he reconciled. According to the intervener, there • was a guaranty upon which he 'relied and which induced him to discount and ,purchase the warrant. The agent of the tractor comPany, who negotiated the sale of the warrant, testified-there was no-guaranty of any kind 'as the waryant had been sold .at a Oiscount of , 20 per cent. -• useful purpose would be: served by reciting in -detail . the' , conflicting' teStimony. It: mnst suffice : to. say that, after caYefUllf eOnsidering ft, 'We are . unable tO say that the decree of the court below, based upOn the finding .that there was • a guaranty; is contrary.to the preponderance of the testimony. The decree must therefore be affirthed,. and itds so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.