Holmes v. Goldsmith

Citations

• 147 U.S. 150
• 13 S. Ct. 288
• 37 L. Ed. 118
• 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2152

Syllabus

<p>The maker of a promissory note signed it entirely for the benefit of the payee, who was really, the party for whose nse it was made; The maker and the .payee were citizens of the same State. A citizen of another ' State discounted the note, and paid full consideration for it to the payee, who endorsed it to him. The note not being paid at maturity, the endorsee, who had not .parted with it, brought suit upon it against th« maker in the .Circuit Court of the United States. Held, that the court - had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the provision in the act of August 13, 1888, 25'Stat. 433, 434, e. 866, that such court shall not have cognizance of a suit to recover the contents of a promissory note in favor of an assignee or subsequent holder, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court if ,no assignment had been made.</p> <p>When the genuineness of a paper sued on is put in issue, papers not otherwise competent may be introduced in Oregon for the purpose of enabling the jury to make a comparison of handwritings.</p> <p>A witness who has sworn to the genuineness of a disputed signature to a note, may be further asked if he would act upon it if it came to him in an ordinary business transaction. ' .</p> <p>The admission of evidence of a collateral fact, which might have been rejected by the trial court without committing error, does not constitute error which will of itself justify reversal of the judgment below; if the case of the plaintiff in error was not injured by it.</p>