First Investment Co. v. Andersen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the defendants’ failure to respond to the plaintiff’s three demand letters and threat of collection services over roughly one and a half years did not establish a basis to invoke estoppel
• observing that liability on a nonnegotiable note “is determined as a matter of simple contract law”
• recognizing that “in order for silence to work an estoppel, there must be a legal duty to speak, or there must be something willful or culpable in the silence which allows another to place himself in an unfavorable position by reason thereof” (citation omitted)
• \[Thhe assignee ... [stands] in the shoes of the assignor and [takes] subject to existing equities and defenses.\
• \[T]he assignee ... [stands] in the shoes of the assignor and [takes] subject to existing equities and defenses.\
• assignee of non negotiable notes has burden of proving maker issued notes for consideration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).