Legal Opinion

Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1933No. Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 37,309PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff's holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff was a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brown, an officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. Even if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in transfer of the note was adverse to interest of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Savings Bank v. MontgomeryMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. People's Savings Bank v. HineMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Tapert v. LehmannMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hoekzema v. Van HaftenMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Bryce v. JonesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API