« PreviousContinue »
McClure v. Wilson McDowell v. McDowell
(C. C. A.) 542 Kirby v. Kansas City, K. V. & W. R. Co. Kranendonk, Willis v. Kroupa v. Mudra
(Iowa) 1329 (Miss.) 645 (Or.) 529
Lacour v. National Surety Co.
Lambert v. Smith
Lancaster, Ex parte
Lumber Co. v. .. (Miss.) 1406 Lavina State Bank, Gay v.
(Mont.) 1204 Lederer v. Cadwalader .. (C. C. A.) 411 Pearce (C. C. A.) 1466 Leflore County, National Surety Co. v. (C. C. A.) 269 Leicht Real Estate Co., Elterich v. (Va.) 441 Leight Real Estate Co., Elterich v. Leonard, Crossette & Riley, Crane v. (Mich.) 285 Lincoln Trust Co., Hastings v. (Wash.) 583 London Assurance Corp., Hick(Cal.) 742
(Kan.) 299 (Utah) 947 (Ill.) 378
(La.) 1295 (Okla.)
1 (Ala.) 706
(Wash.) 1421 (Tenn.) 623
McFerren v. Goldsmith-Stern Co.
McGhee v. Henry
Manes, American Ins. Union v.
Manska v. San Benito Land
Manwaring v. Geisler
(Md.) 1125 (Tenn.) 103
(W. Va.) 717
(Iowa) 1430 (Ky.) 192
Moe v. Shaffer
Mudra, Columbian Circle v.
(N. Y.) 1141 Myers v. State .. (Okla. Crim. App.) 1057
(Vt.) 1426 (Me.) 570
Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co.,
(Pa.) 296 (Minn.) 1194
(Ill.) 378 (Ill.) 378 (Mich.) 468
(Iowa) National Surety Co., Lacour v. County 269 (C. C. A.) Nead v. Hershman (Ohio) 1419 Neal, Re ...... (N. C.) 77 New England Teleph. & Teleg. Co., Halloran V.
New Jersey Asbestos Co. v. Federal Trade Commission ... (C. C. A.) 546 Newman v. Newman (Ohio) 1089 Newport Flying Service Corp., Reinhardt v..... (N. Y.) 1324 (Va.) 1310 (Minn.) 733
Oklahoma Union R. Co., Henley
Old Nat. Bank v. People's Bank
(Minn.) 1370 Ousterhous, Cofman v. .... ... (N. D.) 219 Outlaw v. State (Fla.) 1066
Perkins, Poole v.
Pierce County, Conger v...
(C. C. A.)
Power v. Nordstrom
Rich, Hensley v.
Railroad Co., Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Citizens'
Teleph. Co. v. .. (Ky.) 615
(Okla.) 427 (N. M.) 575 (N. C.) 208 Co.
(N. H.) 1373 Graham (Cal.) 631 Neal 77 (N. C.) Reinhardt v. Newport Flying Service Corp. .. (N. Y.) 1324 (Wis.) 362 Reiter v. Grober ... Remington Arms Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. Feeney Tool Co.
(W. Va.) 717
Schurmann v. United States
(C. C. A.) 1182
(N. C.) 1210
(Colo.) 690 (Wash.) 650
State v. Boggs
(Iowa) 532 (Vt.) 1426
(Okla. Crim. App.) 1057 (Fla.) 1066
ice Commission .. (Mo.) 754
(Neb.) 1074 (Ind.) 500 (Ark.) 202 (Wash.) 1163
State L. Ins. Co., Hornby v.
Steele v. State Stevens v. Barnes
(Ind.) (N. D.)
v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. (N. Y.) 1141 v. Pierce 7 Stevenson (W. N.) & Co. v. Hartman (N. Y.) 1314 Story v. Richardson ... (Cal.) 750 Strong v. Sonken-Galamba Iron & Metal Co. .... (Kan.) 415 Superior Iron Works Co., Cunnien v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, Case v. Sutherland, Stallard v.
(Neb.) 1172 (Va.) 516
Tappan v. Fortman
United States, Brown v. .. (U. S.) 1276 (C. C. A.) 143 (U. S.) 1461 (C. C. A.) 1182
Schurmann v. ....
Evidence-burden of proof - holder of note.
1. The rule placing the burden of proof on the holder obtains where there is fraud in the inception of the note.
[See note on this question beginning on page 18.]
Bills and notes-holder in due course.
2. The purchaser of a negotiable instrument, in order to be a holder in due course, must come within the requirements of § 4102, Rev. Laws 1910, defining such holder.
[See 3 R. C. L. 1031.]
- knowledge of agent effect.
3. Where, at the time a note was negotiated to the holder, his attorney, acting for and representing him in the particular transaction, had actual knowledge of an infirmity in the note, such knowledge will be imputed to the holder as though the facts were made known to him in person. In such case the principal is chargeable with notice of all such facts as come to his agent's knowledge while acting within the scope of his agency.
[See 3 R. C. L. 1069.] -defect in chain of title.
4. When it is shown that the title
Headnotes by SHARP, J.
of any person who has negotiated a negotiable instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course, except as otherwise provided in § 4109, Rev. Laws 1910.
[See 3 R. C. L. 1033, 1038 et seq.1 Appeal instructions - error.
5. Instructions placing the burden of proving knowledge of infirmity in a negotiable instrument upon the defendant, except in the class of cases provided for in the latter part of g 4109, Rev. Laws 1910, constitute reversible error. Such instructions re- . lieve the plaintiff holder of making proof of a fact necessary to a recovery, and impose upon the defendant maker the additional duty of establishing to the jury's satisfaction a fact not necessary to his defense.