Court Opinion

ID: 7817917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:42:59.576628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:39.137348
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice. As I road the majority opinion I understand the facts to be that the manager Blaylock in the regular course of his daily business at the end of each day made out a deposit slip showing the amount of money deposited or to be deposited in the bank account and also a report which he mailed to the home office in Little Rock together with the deposit slips. I also understand that the deposits were made as soon after the close of the business day as security would permit. Under these circumstances it appears to me that the majority is doing violence to the Business Records statute or “shopbook rule.” Even under the common law shopbook rule, the business records here introduced would have been sufficient evidence of delivery of the deposits to the night depository. See Mansfield v. Gushee, 120 Maine 333, 347, 114 A. 296 (1921). It was there held: “Where the person making the entries is the only person having knowledge of the delivery of the goods or the performance of the services, and he is dead, insane, or out of the jurisdiction of the court, or unable to attend court to give his testimony or give his deposition, upon proof of his handwriting and that the books were kept in the regular course of business, and that it was his duty or practice to make such entries at or near the time of delivery of goods or performance of services, the books themselves, if they otherwise appear to be regularly and fairly kept may be sufficient proof of delivery of goods or services performed.” In 30 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 950, the stated purpose of the Business Record Statutes such as Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-928 (Repl. 1962) is as follows: “The Model Act for Proof of Business Transactions, which has been adopted in a few states and by Congress, permits a writing or record made in the regular course of business to be received in evidence without the necessity of calling as witnesses all the persons who had any part in making it. In other words, the act does away with technical rulings which excluded records ordinarily used in business transactions when not formally identified by the makers.” In Scowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 289 P. 2d 621, 55 A.L.R. 2d 1 (1955), there was involved an action by a wholesaler to recover for merchandise shipped and delivered to a store operated by the retailer’s agent. Under a statute similar to ours the court held: “The records of account of respondent, introduced in evidence, constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a finding by the jury that respondent had sold and delivered to the Summitt Supply Company the merchandise therein listed for the price therein set out, and a finding as to the payments made upon the account and the balance due thereon.” In our own case of Harrison v. Stale Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 230 Ark. 630, 326 S.W. 2d 803 (1959), the question involved was whether State Farm had cancelled an insurance policy by mailing a notice of cancellation addressed to Harrison. We there held that the business records of State Farm were evidence under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-928 of the mailing of the notice of cancellation. The record here shows that the whereabouts of manager Blaylock was unknown to appellee at the time of trial. Under these circumstances it appears to me that llie records kept by Blaylock showing the deposits that he either made or was to make within a reasonable time of the making of the business record entry are sufficient either under common law or the statute to show delivery of the deposits to the night depository. Since business records of State Farm in the Harrison case constituted evidence to show that State Farm had properly addressed, stamped and deposited a letter of cancellation in the post office, I am at a loss to understand why the records here are not sufficient to show a placing of the daily deposit in a hank’s night depository. Therefore, I dissent. Holt, J., joins in this dissent.