Skip to main content
· 12/30/1918

Gebby v. Carrillo

Citations

  • 25 N.M. 120
  • 177 P. 894

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. In a suit by the holder of a negotiable instrument acquired from the payee before maturity, where the maker shows fraud in the inception of the instrument, the burden is upon the holder to show that he acquired title to the paper in due course. P. 124</p> <p>2. To remove the burden thus imposed, the holder was required to show by competent evidence: (1) That he became the holder of the note before it was overdue and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; (2) that he took it in good faith for value; and (3) that at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the note, or defect in the title of the person negotiating it. P. 124</p> <p>3. To justify the court in directing the verdict in favor of the holder, or in setting aside a verdict against the holder, the testimony of the bona fide character of the holder must not only be without substantial evidence tending- to impeach it, but showing in its support must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave no room for difference in opinion concerning it among fairminded men. P. 129</p> <p>4. In this case the only evidence of the bona fide purchase of the note in question was given by the holder. Evidence examined, and held that his evidence was possible of contradiction in the circumstances; that its truthfulness and accuracy were open to a reasonable doubt upon the facts of the case; that the circumstances and the interest of the witness furnished a proper ground for disbelief of his statements by the jury. P. 129</p>

Judges: Hanna, Parker, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.