Kellogg v. Curtis
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from the superior court. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The questions raised, and the material facts relating thereto, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The defendant is the maker and the plaintiff an indorsee of a promissory note. The maker defends the suit on the note upon the ground that it was obtained of him by the payee through fraud.
The judge ruled at the trial that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that he had the rights of a bona fide holder, the alleged fraud being first admitted by the plaintiff or proved by the defendant. This was correct. Had the defense been merely a *213want or failure of consideration in the note, the burden to prove a bona fide purchase would not have been cast upon the plaintiff. He would have…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. LivingstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Carroll v. HaywardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by15 opinions
- Christianson v. Farmers' Warehouse Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- First National Bank v. FlathNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Jordan v. GroverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Lambert v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Owens v. SnellOregon Supreme Court · 1896
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.