Russell v. Deal
| Decision Date | 17 May 1904 |
| Citation | 135 N.C. 428,47 S.E. 466 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SETZER & RUSSELL . v. DEAL. |
bills and notes—bona fide purchasers— facts putting on inquiry.
1. Knowledge on the part of a bona fide purchaser of a note of the assignor's crookedness in business matters does not defeat the purchaser's title, or charge him with the duty of making inquiry about the note.
¶ 1. See Bills and Notes, vol. 7. Cent. Dig. § 826.
2. The fact that the firm in which the assignor of a note was a partner had its place of business next door to the purchaser's place of business was irrelevant on the question of the purchaser's character as a bona fide holder of the note.
Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by Setzer & Russell against A. A. Deal. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
E. B. Cline, for appellants.
Self & Whitener and T. M. Hufham, for appellee.
All the evidence was to the effect that the defendant executed two notes to the Deering Harvester Company— one in the sum of $50, and the other in the sum of $55—for an Ideal binder sold by that company to him; that those notes were destroyed in the presence of the defendant by Yoder, and that thereupon the defendant executed the note sued upon in this action. Yoder claimed to be one of the firm of the Hickory Implement Company, and testified that he indorsed the same to the plaintiffs for value. The defendant attempted to prove that Yoder and the plaintiffs conspired to cheat the Deering Harvester Company by destroying the evidence of the indebtedness of the defendant to that company, and in taking the note of the defendant for the amount. There is abundant evidence in the case going to show that Yoder practiced a fraud upon the Deering Harvester Company in the transaction, but we can see from the evidence only one suspicious circumstance tending to prove the complicity of the plaintiffs in the matter, viz., that, according to the defendant's testimony, after the plaintiffs alleged they bought the note sued upon, the defendant called upon the plaintiffs, and asked them if they had bought the note from Yoder, and, if so, what they paid for it, and they declined to answer the questions. That was, as we have said, after the alleged purchase of the note. The defendant, with the purpose to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of such facts as should have put them on inquiry as to the title of Yoder to the notes sued on, asked Setzer, one of the plaintiffs, if he did not know at the time of the transfer of the notes that there were charges against Yoder...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local Finance Co. v. Charlton
...235 S.W. 178, 181(3).7 See particularly Standard Acceptance Corporation v. Chapin, 277 Mass. 278, 178 N.E. 538; Setzer & Russell v. Deal, 135 N.C. 428, 47 S.E. 466; Despres, Bridges & Noel v. Hough Drug Co., 123 Miss. 598, 86 So. 359; Silberschmidt v. Moran, 79 Cal.App. 533, 250 P. 205, 207......
-
Southwest Nat. Bank of Kansas City, Missouri v. Lindsley
... ... of Kansas City, 119 U.S. 551, 7 S.Ct. 318, 30 L.Ed. 515; ... Winter v. Nobs, 19 Idaho 18, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 302, ... 112 P. 525; Setzer v. Deal, 135 N.C. 428, 47 S.E ... 466; Gray v. Boyle, 55 Wash. 578, 133 Am. St. 1042, ... 104 P. 828; Lehman v. Press, 106 Iowa 389, 76 N.W ... ...
-
Salem Trading & Finance Co. v. Peterson
...regarded from a commercial standpoint." That indorsees have been leniently treated is shown in the above citations. In Setzer v. Deal, 135 N. C. 428, 47 S. E. 466, knowledge of general charges against payee's honesty in business practices with evidence that the indorsee failed to inquire co......
-
Standard Acceptance Corp. v. Chapin
...enough of itself to render the purchaser from him one who does not take in due course. Estabrook v. Boyle, 1 Allen, 412;Setzer v. Deal, 135 N. C. 428, 47 S. E. 466. As was pointed out in Fillebrown v. Hayward, 190 Mass. 472, 480, 77 N. E. 45, 46, ‘neither knowledge of suspicious circumstanc......