Mayo v. Moore
Illinois Supreme Court
Moore sued Mayo in assumpsit, upon an assigned note, onade payable to one Stevens. It appeared that Moore loaned Stevens money, for the re-payment of which Stevens indorsed .this note. Stevens by misrepresentation induced Mayo to pay him the amount of the note. The note was assigned to Moore .before it became due. The court below gave judgment for the amount due from Stevens to Moore, and Mayo appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, C. J.
It may be admitted for the present, that the pláintiff took this note as collateral security for a pre-existing debt only, and that the assignee, therefore, was not a bona fide holder, but took it subject to all the equities or defenses which the makers had against it, and still the defendant’s case is not advanced, until he shows that he had such equities or defense against the note. And yet this is not pretended. The only defense is, that he paid the note to the payee after the assignment and after the maturity of the note. Here, the legal title to the note had been transferred…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Maitland v. Citizens' National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
- Gammon v. HuseAppellate Court of Illinois · 1882
- Sill v. PateIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Ennor v. HodsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888
- Steere v. BensonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.