Commercial Security Co. v. Jack
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Grand. Eorks County; O. M. Cooley, J. From a judgment ordered non obstante veredicto in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Grand. Eorks County; O. M. Cooley, J. From a judgment ordered non obstante veredicto in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals. In a suit on a promissory note, a verdict should not be directed for tbe bolder, unless the evidence is such that fairminded men can draw only one inference therefrom, and may not be directed where the evidence is uncontroverted, if the inferences to be drawn from the circumstances are open to different conclusions by reasonable men. Arnd v. Aylesworth, 145 Iowa, 185, 29 L.P.A.(N.S.) 638, 123 N. W. 1000. Where there is an issue as to the…
1Opinion
On Petition for Rehearing Piled Jan. 2, 1915.
Pee Cueiam.
Appellant’s counsel has petitioned for a rehearing upon two points. Pirst, he asserts that the statement in.the opinion that there is no allegation or proof that plaintiff did not acquire title to this paper as a holder in due course is erroneous; and, second, that inasmuch as the plaintiff had the burden of proving the transfer and *75its ownership of the note, “it was incumbent on it to meet that issue and sustain that burden of proof by some evidence.”
As to counsel’s first contention, it is apparent that he misconstrues our holding. All…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kerr v. AndersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
- Tullis v. ShannonWashington Supreme Court · 1892
- Nunnemacker v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Hodgson v. MatherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904