Doll v. Hollenback
| Decision Date | 26 May 1886 |
| Citation | 28 N.W. 286,19 Neb. 639 |
| Parties | DOLL v. HOLLENBACK AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Douglas county.
C. A. Baldwin, for plaintiff.
O'Brien & O'Brien, for defendants.
This action was brought in the district court to foreclose a mortgage. The appellant was plaintiff in that court, and the appellees were defendants. The plaintiff in his petition alleged that on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1880, the defendants made their note for $700, payable two years from date, to August Doll, with interest at 10 per cent., and to secure the same gave a mortgage on certain lands in Douglas county; that on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1882, August Doll, for a valuable consideration, sold, assigned, and transferred said note and mortgage to William Doll, the plaintiff, who thereby became and now is the bona fide owner and holder thereof. The defendants by their answer admit the making of the note and mortgage; but allege that the note was given for an old note; that the old note was founded on a usurious contract, thereby affecting the note sued on; and the defense of usury is relied upon. The plaintiff by his reply alleged that he knew nothing of the transaction between the original parties to the note and mortgage, and that he is a bona fide owner, without any notice whatever of any defense to the note.
The cause was tried to the court, which found A decree was entered in accordance with the said findings, and the plaintiff brings the cause to this court on appeal.
There is no point upon the facts or evidence in the case; on the contrary, appellant in his brief “admits that the old note was usurious, and that, as against the original payee, August Doll, usury would be a good defense.” It is not claimed that the note was indorsed by the payee. The following is a copy of the note taken from the transcript.
+-----------------------------------+
¦“$700.¦OMAHA, NEB., March 25, 1880.¦
+-----------------------------------+
Two years after date I promise to pay to August Doll, or order, seven hundred dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount at the banking-house of Caldwell, Hamilton & Co., at Omaha, Nebraska, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from date until paid, interest payable annually.
HORACE S. HOLLENBECK.”
The note being thus payable to August Doll, or order, it must have been indorsed by him in order to the transfer of the legal title; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fassler v. Streit
...transfer of the note, does not cut off defenses which would be available to the maker in a suit by the original payee. Doll v. Hollenbeck, 19 Neb. 639, 28 N.W. 286; Colby v. Parker, 34 Neb. 510, 52 N.W. Gaylord v. Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank, 54 Neb. 104, 74 N.W. 415; Sackett v. Montgo......
-
Pribus v. Bush
...in a number of majority jurisdictions. (See, e. g., Bishop v. Chase, supra, 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. at pp. 1083-1084; Doll v. Hollenbeck (1886) 19 Neb. 639, 28 N.W. 286, 288.) The majority view interpretation of the law merchant rule of allonges was adopted statutorily in California. When the ......
-
Nebraska National Bank of Omaha v. Pennock
... ... cut off equities or defenses, as would have been done had ... this negotiable note been regularly indorsed. (Doll v ... Hollenbeck, 19 Neb. 639, 28 N.W. 286; Colby v ... Parker, 34 Neb. 510, 52 N.W. 693; Gaylord v ... Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank, 54 ... ...
-
Nebraska Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Pennock
...title, did not cut off equities or defenses, as would have been done had this negotiable note been regularly indorsed. Doll v. Hollenbeck, 19 Neb. 639, 28 N. W. 286;Colby v. Parker, 34 Neb. 510, 52 N. W. 693;Gaylord v. Bank (Neb.) 74 N. W. 415. But was there such an existing equity or defen......