Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Banks And Banking - Liability Of Bank Upon Payment Of The Check Of An Insane Depositor Without Notice Of The Insanity, William L. Howland
Banks And Banking - Liability Of Bank Upon Payment Of The Check Of An Insane Depositor Without Notice Of The Insanity, William L. Howland
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiff, as trustee for a depositor, sought in this action to charge the defendant bank with the amount of a check drawn by the depositor while insane. On the ground that the depositor was an inmate of the state hospital for the insane, the plaintiff had been appointed his trustee. Subsequent to this appointment, the depositor drew the check in question, and the defendant paid the amount of the check to the payee. Held, in the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of the insanity, a payment by a bank of the check of an insane depositor is …
Bills And Notes - Effect On Negotiability Of Provision For Confession Of Judgment, Michigan Law Review
Bills And Notes - Effect On Negotiability Of Provision For Confession Of Judgment, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
A note was made providing for eighteen monthly payments, and on default of any payment, the whole amount to become due; a clause was inserted in the note authorizing confession of judgment on the note in favor of the holder "at any time hereafter . . . for such amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, together with costs and attorney's fees." Held, the provision for confession of judgment did not destroy the negotiability of the note, since it authorized confession of judgment only after default in one of the installments due. United States v. Nagorney, (D. …
Bills And Notes - Holder In Due Course - Burden Of Proof Where There Is A Want Of Consideration Between Immediate Parties, James A. Lee
Bills And Notes - Holder In Due Course - Burden Of Proof Where There Is A Want Of Consideration Between Immediate Parties, James A. Lee
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, transferee of a promissory note and a conditional sale contract, brought suit on the negotiable promissory note, and alleged that he was a holder in due course. Defendant answered that there was no consideration for the note. Held, that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that he was a holder in due course by section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides: "Every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, …