Cases on Negotiable Instruments |
|
Author:
| Chafee, Zechariah |
ISBN: | 978-0-217-96024-3 |
Publication Date: | Feb 2012 |
Publisher: | General Books LLC
|
Book Format: | Paperback |
List Price: | AUD $14.88 |
Book Description:
|
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: PURCHASE FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE ESKRIDGE v. THOMAS. Supreme Court Of Appeals, West Virginia. 1916 79 W. Va. 322. The plaintiffs made a negotiable note and several renewals of the same instrument payable to Thomas, who endorsed them to the Traders National Bank in due course, which sued the makers and...
More DescriptionPurchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: PURCHASE FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE ESKRIDGE v. THOMAS. Supreme Court Of Appeals, West Virginia. 1916 79 W. Va. 322. The plaintiffs made a negotiable note and several renewals of the same instrument payable to Thomas, who endorsed them to the Traders National Bank in due course, which sued the makers and endorser. The makers then filed their bill against the Bank and Thomas to enjoin further prosecution of the action on the note, alleging usury, their lack of knowledge of its extent, and the need of purging the note of usury. An injunction was granted. From the overruling of a demurrer and the denial of a motion to dissolve the injunction, the Bank appeals.1 Lynch, J. ... It is contended that, although 5, ch. 96, declares void all contracts for the loan or forbearance of money as to any excess of interest charged above the legal rate, yet, under sections 52, 55 and 57 of the negotiable instruments act, the defendant bank, as a holder in due course, took the instrument relieved of usury, if any, charged on the notes in the original transaction. Under 52, it contends it was such a holder, because the instrument is complete and regular upon its face, was not overdue when negotiated, and the bank took it in good faith and for value, without notice that it had previously been dishonored, if such was the fact, or of any infirmity in the note or defect in the title of the endorser; that, under 55, the title of Thomas was not defective, within the meaning of the act, unless he obtained the instrument or any signature thereto by fraud, duress or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amount to fraud; and that, if he did so obtain it, respondent, as a holder in due course, took the instrument, by virtue of...