Opinion

Myers v. First State Bank

  • 293 Ark. 82
  • 732 S.W.2d 459
  • 4 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 806
  • 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2210
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Jul 20, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Newbern
On the bench
Glaze, Hays, Holt, Newbern, Purtle
Cited by
7 cases

"|T]he surety must prove two elements in order to be entitled to a discharge — ‘that the holder of the note was responsible for the loss or impairment of the collateral, and the extent to which the impairment results in loss.’ "

How later courts described this case

  • "|T]he surety must prove two elements in order to be entitled to a discharge — ‘that the holder of the note was responsible for the loss or impairment of the collateral, and the extent to which the impairment results in loss.’ "
  • Under Arkansas general suretyship law, a creditor must preserve a surety’s right of recourse in collateral.

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. First State Bank lost its claim to collateral when it inexplicably dismissed with prejudice its claims against those in possession. It thus breached its duty to the surety. While we may try to classify this decision as ad hoc in the future, I believe the precedent will prove to be bad, therefore, I dissent.

Purtle, J., joins this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.