W. Side Trust Co. v. Krug
| Decision Date | 02 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 114.,114. |
| Parties | WEST SIDE TRUST CO. v. KRUG et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The proofs examined, the answer was properly struck, and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by the West Side Trust Company, etc., against Jacob Krug and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Hudspeth & Harris and Harry H. Harris, all of Jersey City, for appellants.
Bilder, Bilder & Kaufman, of Newark, for appellee.
Plaintiff, a banking corporation, sued upon a promissory note executed by the defendants. It appears that the instrument was complete and regular upon its face and was obtained for value before maturity in the regular course of business. Upon motion, the answer was properly struck and judgment entered for the plaintiff.
The answer alleges that the note was given for refrigerator equipment sold under an implied warranty that it would effectively cool and refrigerate the beverages to be sold by the defendant Jacob Krug. This warranty was alleged breached.
The proofs indicate that at the time the bank discounted the note there was also delivered to it a certificate signed by the defendants Krug, indicating that the equipment sold had been delivered and installed as required by the contract, and that the same had been accepted as satisfactory.
The defendants' proofs indicate that the note was not to be used until the contract for installation had been properly executed and performed and that all the papers were signed in blank.
The holder in due course of a negotiable instrument takes free from defenses available to prior parties. Section 57, N. I.L., 3 Comp.St.1910, p. 3741, § 57; Coffin v. May, 104 N.J.Law, 347, 140 A. 331.
In the hands of such holder, a valid delivery by all prior parties is conclusively presumed. N.I.L. § 16, 3 Comp.St. 1910, p. 3737, § 16.
Even if the instrument was not complete at the time of delivery, the person in possession thereof has prima facie authority to complete it by filling in the blanks, and after completion, if negotiated to a holder in due course, it is valid and effectual for all purposes. N.I.L. § 14, 3 Comp.St.1910, p. 3736, § 14. See, also, Rice v. Barrington, 75 N.J.Law, 806, 70 A. 169.
"To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating' the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey Mortg. & Inv. Corp. v. Calvetti
...Barrington, 75 N.J.L. 806, 70 A. 169 (E. & A. 1908); Davis v. Clark, 85 N.J.L. 696, 90 A. 303 (E. & A. 1914); West Side Trust Co. v. Krug, 117 N.J.L. 102, 187 A. 154 (E. & A. 1936); Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 480, 86 A.2d 201 (1952), certiorari denied 344 U.S. 83......
-
Bancredit, Inc. v. Bethea
...of an instrument complete in all material respects constituted an adequate discharge of that burden. See West Side Trust Co. v. Krug, 117 N.J.L. 102, 187 A. 154 (E. & A. 1936); B.A.C. Corp. v. Cirucci, 131 N.J.L. 93, 35 A.2d 36 As a holder in due course plaintiff is, of course, immune to al......
-
Hudson County Nat. Bank v. Alexander Furs Inc.
...his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.’ See, also, Aldrich v. Peckham, 74 N.J.L. 711, 68 A. 345; West Side Trust Co. v. Krug, 117 N.J.L. 102, 187 A. 154, and B. A. C. Corporation v. Cirucci, 131 N.J.L. 93, 35 A.2d 36. There is not a scintilla of proof that the plaintiff ......
-
Eastern Acceptance Corp. v. Kavlick
...warranted that there had been full performance on his part; there were somewhat similar warranties in West Side Trust Co. v. Krug, 117 N.J.L. 102, 187 A. 154 (E. & A. 1936) and Coffin v. May, 104 N.J.L. 347, 140 A. 331 (E. & A. 1928) where the endorsees were determined to be holders in due ......