Cases on Negotiable Instruments; Supplementary to Amess? Cases on Bills and Notes Buy on Amazon
Facebook LinkedIn

Cases on Negotiable Instruments; Supplementary to Amess? Cases on Bills and Notes

20.00 USD

Usually ships in 1 to 3 weeks

Book Details
Author(s) Zechariah Chafee
Publisher General Books LLC
ISBN / ASIN 0217960243
ISBN-13 9780217960243
Availability Usually ships in 1 to 3 weeks
Marketplace United States 🇺🇸
Ratings & Reviews No reviews yet — be the first!

No reviews yet.

Description
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919. Excerpt: ... PURCHASE FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE ESKRIDGE v. THOMAS. Supreme Court Of Appeals, West Virginia. 1916 79 W. Va. 322. The plaintiffs made a negotiable note and several renewals of the same instrument payable to Thomas, who endorsed them to the Traders National Bank in due course, which sued the makers and endorser. The makers then filed their bill against the Bank and Thomas to enjoin further prosecution of the action on the note, alleging usury, their lack of knowledge of its extent, and the need of purging the note of usury. An injunction was granted. From the overruling of a demurrer and the denial of a motion to dissolve the injunction, the Bank appeals.1 Lynch, J.... It is contended that, although § 5, ch. 96, declares void all contracts for the loan or forbearance of money as to any excess of interest charged above the legal rate, yet, under sections 52, 55 and 57 of the negotiable instruments act, the defendant bank, as a holder in due course, took the instrument relieved of usury, if any, charged on the notes in the original transaction. Under § 52, it contends it was such a holder, because the instrument is complete and regular upon its face, was not overdue when negotiated, and the bank took it in good faith and for value, without notice that it had previously been dishonored, if such was the fact, or of any infirmity in the note or defect in the title of the endorser; that, under § 55, the title of Thomas was not defective, within the meaning of the act, unless he obtained the instrument or any signature thereto by fraud, duress or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or in breach of faith or under such circumstances as amount to fraud; and that, if he did so obtain it, respondent, as a holder in due course, took t...
Donate to EbookNetworking
No Prev
No Next