Wells v. Duffy

Citations

• 69 Wash. 310
• 124 P. 907
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 901

Syllabus

<p>Bills and Notes—Holder in Due Course—Burden oe Proof— Evidence—Sueeiciency. In an action on a promissory note, tbe plaintiff bas sustained tbe burden of proving that be is a bolder in due course, as required by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3450, where it appears that tbe note for $2,000 was given in payment of stock and was within a few days sold and indorsed to a corporation in payment of a stock subscription, and in a few weeks sold and indorsed by tbe corporation for $1,900 paid in cash, neither indorsee having any notice of fraud, and that tbe maker himself did not learn for two months that be bad been defrauded; since (1) plaintiff purchased in good faith, within Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3447, and (2) derived his title through a holder in due course, within Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3449.</p> <p>Same—Holder in Due Course—Notice oe Defects—Evidence— Sufficiency. The fact that a note for $2,000 was discounted $100, and that the purchaser relied entirely on the credit of the indorser, does not impart notice of a defect in title so as to render him not a holder in due course, where it was represented that both the maker and another indorser were men of financial responsibility.</p> <p>Same—Evidence as to Good Faith—Admissibility. In an action on a promissory note, upon an issue as to whether plaintiff was a holder in due course, what the maker would have said if asked whether he had a defense to the note, is immaterial, where there was nothing to put the plaintiff upon inquiry.</p>