Reeper v. Greevy

Citations

• 5 Pa. Super. 316
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 242

Syllabus

<p>Promissory note — Fraud—Evidence—Burden of proof.</p> <p>To support an action by the indorsee of negotiable paper against the maker, in the first instance it is only necessary for the plaintiff to put the paper in evidence; then if the defendant proves that the paper was put in circulation by fraud or undue means, his defense will prevail unless the plaintiff establishes that he acted fairly and paid value.</p> <p>Promissory note- — Fraud—Evidence of conspiracy.</p> <p>Where in a suit on a promissory note, the theory of the defense is that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder, that he was acting for the original payee, and when there was evidence that eveiy thing which had been done in regard to the inception and conduct of the action had been done by the payee — who had employed counsel and retained custody of the note — and when it was alleged that at the transfer of the note no money passed but it was accepted in payment of wages due by the payee to plaintiff without indorsement by payee. Held, that it was error to reject an offer to prove that the payee who obtained possession of the note in 1893 still claimed to be the owner of the same in 1895 ; and it was error in face of such offer to say that the evidence was undisputed that plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value without notice before maturity.</p>