edward arnold played saunders in mr smith goes to washington.
edward arnold played saunders in mr smith goes to washington.
who played saunders in mr smith goes to washington?
edward arnold
mr. smith goes to washington









































mr. smith goes to washington is a 1939 american political comedy-drama film directed by frank capra, starring jean arthur and james stewart, and featuring claude rains and edward arnold. the film is about a newly appointed united states senator who fights against a corrupt political system, and was written by sidney buchman, based on lewis r. foster's unpublished story "the gentleman from montana". the film was controversial when it was first released, but successful at the box office, and it made stewart a major star.
mr. smith goes to washington
the claimant, mr smith, was the former managing director and controlling shareholder of a company called display electronics ltd (referred to in the judgment as "del"). at some time in 1988, mr smith decided to transfer the banking for del from barclays bank plc to lloyds bank. at that time del owed barclays over £250,000. an agreement was entered into between mr smith, del and lloyds under which lloyds would take over the funding of the development, but one of the terms of this agreement was that both mr smith's personal borrowings (which at that time were very small) and del's borrowings would be subject to a security interest over the development in favour of the bank, and also by a mortgage on mr smith's home. del did not prosper, and eventually lloyds called in its loans. as a result, del went into liquidation, and mr smith lost his home. the bank also lodged a bankruptcy petition with respect to mr smith personally. a number of litigation cases ensued between mr smith and lloyds. one of the assertions mr smith made in these cases was that he and lloyds had entered into an oral agreement to the effect that lloyds would make available to del long term finance in a substantial amount. lloyds always denied the existence of any such oral agreement. in at least two of the actions findings of fact had been made to the effect that no such oral agreement existed. but mr smith believed that certain documentation held by lloyds will prove his contentions.
smith v lloyds tsb bank plc