Legal Opinion

Unico v. Owen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 31, 1967PublishedCited by 94 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Feaucis, J.

The issue to be decided here is whether plaintiff Unico, a New Jersey partnership, is a holder in due course of defendant’s note. If so, it is entitled to a judgment for the unpaid balance due thereon, for which this suit was brought. The District Court found plaintiff was not such a holder and that it was therefore subject to the defense interposed by defendant, maker of the note, of failure of consideration on the part of the payee, which endorsed it to plaintiff. Since it was undisputed that the payee failed to furnish the consideration…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
  2. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. American National Bank of San Francisco v. A. G. Sommerville, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Commercial Credit Company v. ChildsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  5. Quality Finance Co. v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by94 opinions

  1. Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Glaire v. La Lanne-Paris Health Spa, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Gladden v. Cadillac Motor Car DivisionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  5. Rehurek v. Chrysler Credit CorporationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972

89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API