Richards v. Betzer

Citations

• 53 Ill. 466

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignment — without date — presumption as to time of assignment. Where the assignment of a promissory note is without date, the law raises the presumption, subject to be rebutted, that the transfer was made before maturity. And, in such case, in an action by the assignee against the maker, it devolves upon the defendant to overcome this presumption by proof</p> <p>2. So, in an action on a promissory note, by the assignee against the maker, the assignment being without date, and the defense being a partial failure of consideration, it was held, the defendent having failed to introduce any evidence showing the transfer was made after maturity, the question was properly left to the jury, whether the plaintiff purchased the note under such circumstances as charged him with notice of any defense the defendant might have to the note, whether the circumstances were such as would put a prudent man upon inquiry.</p> <p>3. Eaxlure of consideration—what constitutes. To constitute a failure of consideration of a promissory note, there must be either a warranty or a false and fraudulent representation of the thing sold.</p> <p>4. Fraudulent representations—scienter. And to render representations fraudulent, the person making them must know, or have reason to believe them to be false.</p> <p>5. So, in an action on a promissory note, where the defense is a failure of consideration, on the ground of false and fraudulent representations, it devolves upon the defendant to prove, not only that the representations were untrue, but that the seller knew them to be false when he made them.</p> <p>6. Parties—in action upon promissory note—of the equitable owner. The right of action upon a promissory note is in the person holding the legal title, notwithstanding the fact that another person may have an equitable interest therein. And it is no concern of the maker that a third person holds an equitable interest in the note.</p>