Reports of the Cases Decided in the Appellate Court of Indiana Volume 23

Reports of the Cases Decided in the Appellate Court of Indiana Volume 23

By (author) 

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900 edition. Excerpt: ...back to the payees, who at the time held the note, and demanded the note, which they refused to surrender; that appellant did not pay a valuable consideration for the note, did not purchase it before matur ' ity, and had full knowledge at the time of the purchase of the note of this defense. This court has held in Bunting v. M ick, 5 Ind. App. 289, that if a plaintiff in a case like this avers that he held the note in good faith, obtained it before maturity for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any defense on the part of the maker, the defendant must meet this in his answer; and if the maker answers with a defense against the payee and also pleads facts denying plaintiff's want of notice, it would be good against a demurrer. The same case also holds that, if the plaintiff fails to aver that he took the note without notice of any defenses on the maker's part, the defendant need not allege in his answer that the plaintiff had notice of such defenses. If the plaintiff says nothing about want of notice, and the defendant pleads fraud against the payee, the plaintiff must reply want of notice. That is, from the case of Bunting v. Mick, supra, and the cases cited in that opinion, the rule is that the burden is on.the plaintifi' to show that he is a bona fide holder, and that this includes proof that he obtained the note' without notice of the defense. And we take it that the plaintiff may assume this burden in Bradley, Holton & Co. v. Whicker. his complaint, as he did in the case at bar. See, also, Galvin v. Bank, 129 Ind. 439; Bank v. Ruhl, 122 Ind. 279; Giberson v. Jolley, 120 Ind. 301; Bowser v. Spiesshofer, 4 Ind. App. 348. That the verdict is not sustained by sufiicient evidence, and is contrary to...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 268 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 485g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236805178
  • 9781236805171