Legal Opinion

Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1933No. Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 37,309Published

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff’s holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff wYas a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brownian-officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can ■ be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. ' Evetf if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in *355transfer of the note was adverse to interest of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Savings Bank v. MontgomeryMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. People's Savings Bank v. HineMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Tapert v. LehmannMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API