Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-58-109 (2026)

Proof of assignment — Pleadings

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The assignee of any instrument in writing made assignable by law, on bringing suit on any assigned paper, shall not be required to prove the assignment unless the defendant annexes to his or her answer an affidavit denying the assignment and stating in the affidavit that he or she verily believes that one (1) or more of the assignments on the instrument of writing was forged.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 11, § 4; C. & M. Dig., § 479; Pope's Dig., § 516; A.S.A. 1947, § 68-806.

Case Notes

In General.

An assignment need not be proved unless denied. Winer v. Bank of Blytheville, 89 Ark. 435, 117 S.W. 232 (1909); Webb v. Alma Cash Store, 160 Ark. 290, 254 S.W. 670 (1923).

Applicability.

This section applies only to assignments in writing. School-District v. Reeve, 56 Ark. 68, 19 S.W. 106 (1892).

This section only applies if written documentation of an assignment has been produced by the plaintiff. Beal Bank v. Thornton, 70 Ark. App. 336, 19 S.W.3d 48 (2000).

Cited: Smith v. National Cashflow Sys., 309 Ark. 101, 827 S.W.2d 146 (1992).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1992–2000 · leading case: Beal Bank, SSB v. Thornton, 19 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beal Bank, SSB v. Thornton, 19 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1996) provides: The assignee of any instrument in writing made assignable by law, on bringing suit on any assigned paper, shall not be required to prove the assignment, unless the defendant annexes to his answer an affidavit denying the assignment and stating in the affidavit…”

Smith v. Nat'l Cashflow Sys., Inc., 827 S.W.2d 146 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2× “The court cited what is now Ark. Code Ann. § 4-58-109 (1987), which provides that an assignee bringing suit on any assigned paper is not required to prove the assignment unless the defendant alleges the assignment was forged.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.