Bank v. Sherron

“1. Was the note sued on secured by fraud of the Cumberland Railway and Power Company? Answer: No.’

“2. Did the defendant endorse the note, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’

“3. Are the plaintiffs the holder of the note in due course? Answer: ‘Yes.’

“4. What sum is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: ‘$2,500, with interest from 18 November, 1919, less two payments of $30, 8 March, 1920, and $150 paid 12 November, 1920.’ ”

It will be observed, in the first place, that the allegation of fraud has been negatived by the jury’s answer to the first issue. In the face of…