Banks v. McCosker & Molloy

Citations

• 82 Md. 518
• 34 A. 539
• 1896 Md. LEXIS 28

Syllabus

<p>Bills and Notes — Fraud in Obtaining Note — Defences of Maker — Contracts in Violation of Statute — Sales by Unlicensed Pedlar — Evidence — Pleading—Signatures of Parties to Negotiable Instrument Sued on not Denied in the Pleadings.</p> <p>In an action by an endorsee of a promissory note against the maker the defendant may show, under the general issue plea, that the note sued on was obtained by the fraud of the payee, and that the plaintiff took the same with notice thereof.</p> <p>But a plea setting forth that such note was procured by the fraud of the payee is open to demurrer, because it does not also allege that the plaintiff took the note with knowledge of the fraud.</p> <p>If it be shown that the promissory note sued on by the endorsee was obtained by the fraud of the payee, then it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that he took the note before maturity for a valuable consideration, and without knowledge of the fraudulent origin of the note.</p> <p>In such case, in order to prove that the payee of the note had obtained the same by fraud, it is competent to ask the maker to state the circumstances under which he signed the note.</p> <p>A statute provides that hawkers and pedlars shall take out licenses before making sales, and a fine is imposed in general terms for a violation of the law. Held, that all contracts made by unlicensed pedlars are not made illegal, since the object of this statute is to raise revenue, and that the price of goods sold by a pedlar not licensed as required may be recovered by action.</p> <p>In offering his evidence, a party is not required to follow any particular order of proof.</p> <p>In an action on a negotiable instrument, if the signature of a maker or payee is not denied by plea, it is taken to be admitted by virtue of Code, Art. 75, sec.'23, sub-sec. 108. The general issue plea filed by the defendant is not such a denial as is contemplated by the statute!</p>