Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hederman v. Cox

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1940No. 33838Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion.

Anderson, J.,

delivered a dissenting opinion.

One of the outstanding purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Act was to promote the negotiability of commercial paper in the hands of holders in due course. The Act provides (Sec. 2716, Code of 1930) that: “A holder in due course holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves [italics mine], and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon.”

A holder in due course is defined by Section…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Union Trust Co. v. McGintyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  2. Gilliam v. McLemoreMississippi Supreme Court · 1925
  3. First Nat. Bank of Gulfport v. RauMississippi Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API