Legal Opinion

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Strickland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 15, 1924PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

It is admitted that the plaintiffs' took the note in suit before it was overdue, for good faith and value, and without knowledge of any infirmity. It is therefore contended that the plaintiffs are holders in due course and entitled to judgment. C. S., 3033. Every person is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it is shown the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he, or some person under whom he claims, acquired the title as a holder in due course. C. S., 3040. The plaintiffs admit they purchased the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Knight v. . HoughtallingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  2. Collins v. Davis.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Hyman v. . Devereux and OthersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
  4. Griffin v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Kidder v. . McIlhennySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  2. Indemnity Insurance v. W. L. Macatee & SonsTexas Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. W. L. Macatee & SonsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1937
  4. Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
  5. Whitesides v. Council of CheyenneWyoming Supreme Court · 1957

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API