Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Volume 1; At General Term, Not Reported in the Official Series, from March, 1889 [To 1890] (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...Rose, ante; Welch v. Sage, ante; Seybel v. National Currency Bk., ante. If a party pays full value for a note, in the usual course of business before maturity, that alone is prima facie proof of his good faith. Richmond v-Diefendorf, ante; Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand, ante; Cowing n. Altman, ante. But when he pays only half value, or substantially less than its face value, the transaction implies some defect, impeaches the responsibility or integrity of the maker, or the genuineness of the papers itself, and requires the holder to explain what occasions the large disparity between the nominal value and the actual price. Id. Huff v. Wagner, 63 Barb. 215,235. A holder of a negotiable note, where the maker shows that it was obtained from him by fraud or duress, is in no better position than the payee unless, within the law merchant, he is a bona fide holder, and he does not establish that character for himself by merely producing the note and proving that he paid one-half its face value for it. Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357. Antecedent debt.--The transfer of a note as collateral security for the payment of a pre-existing debt, is not taking it in the ordinary course of trade, and for a valuable consideration, as between the creditor and an accommodation indorser. Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170. The term "by the usual course of trade" is meant, not that the holder shall receive the bills and notes thus obtained as securities for antecedent debts, but that he shall take them in his business, and as payment for a debt contracted at the time. Payne v. Cutler, 13 Id. 605. A draft fraudulently diverted from the object for which it was made and accepted, can be enforced against the accommodation accepter only by a bona fide holder for value. Moore v-Ry...

R830

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles8300
Mobicred@R78pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...Rose, ante; Welch v. Sage, ante; Seybel v. National Currency Bk., ante. If a party pays full value for a note, in the usual course of business before maturity, that alone is prima facie proof of his good faith. Richmond v-Diefendorf, ante; Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand, ante; Cowing n. Altman, ante. But when he pays only half value, or substantially less than its face value, the transaction implies some defect, impeaches the responsibility or integrity of the maker, or the genuineness of the papers itself, and requires the holder to explain what occasions the large disparity between the nominal value and the actual price. Id. Huff v. Wagner, 63 Barb. 215,235. A holder of a negotiable note, where the maker shows that it was obtained from him by fraud or duress, is in no better position than the payee unless, within the law merchant, he is a bona fide holder, and he does not establish that character for himself by merely producing the note and proving that he paid one-half its face value for it. Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357. Antecedent debt.--The transfer of a note as collateral security for the payment of a pre-existing debt, is not taking it in the ordinary course of trade, and for a valuable consideration, as between the creditor and an accommodation indorser. Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170. The term "by the usual course of trade" is meant, not that the holder shall receive the bills and notes thus obtained as securities for antecedent debts, but that he shall take them in his business, and as payment for a debt contracted at the time. Payne v. Cutler, 13 Id. 605. A draft fraudulently diverted from the object for which it was made and accepted, can be enforced against the accommodation accepter only by a bona fide holder for value. Moore v-Ry...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

May 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 12mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

232

ISBN-13

978-1-232-29867-0

Barcode

9781232298670

Categories

LSN

1-232-29867-0



Trending On Loot