Hubbard v. Rankin

Citations

• 71 Ill. 129

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud and circumvention—defense of good against bona fide purchaser of note. If the execution of a promissory note is obtained by fraud and circumvention, it is void even in the hands of a bona fide holder, and whether such holder had notice of the defense or not, is wholly immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the maker offered to restore what he received under the contract he supposed he was making.</p> <p>2. Same—what amounts to. If a person is induced to sign a paper under the belief it is for his appointment as agent to sell a patent right, which in fact turns out to be a promissory note, which he had no idea of executing, and he is guilty of no negligence on his part, the note will be void, as having been obtained through fraud and circumvention.</p> <p>3. Evidence—preponderance does not depend upon the number of the witnesses. It does not follow, from the fact that two witnesses to the same transaction testify in direct opposition to each other, that there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of the party'holding the affirmative of the issue, as suph a rule would rob the jury of their peculiar province of judging of the credibility of the witnesses.</p>