DeWitt v. Perkins
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. Action on defendant’s promissory note. Tbe jury, by direction of tbe court, found for tbe plaintiff; and tbe defendant appealed from tbe judgment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. Action on defendant’s promissory note. Tbe jury, by direction of tbe court, found for tbe plaintiff; and tbe defendant appealed from tbe judgment. Tbe questions in dispute will sufficiently appear from tbe opinion. to tbe point tbat tbe plaintiff’s attorney should have been required to answer the questions put to him, cited Ooveney v. Tanna-hill, 1 Hill, 40, and tbe case there cited of Duffin v. Smith, Peake, 108; Dudley v. Beck, 3 Wis., 285-6; Hattan v. Robinson, 14 Pick., 416. To tbe point tbat plaintiff was not a purchaser in good faith,…
1Opinion of the CourtDixoN, C. J.
The plaintiff, knowing tbe defendant, and tbat be was in fair credit and able to resjmnd, purchased, shortly before its maturity, a promissory note against him for three hundred dollars and interest for six months, paying therefor only tbe sum of Jive dollars. As between tbe defendant and tbe payee, tbe note was invalid for want of consideration. Is tbe plaintiff a bona fide holder for vaule, so as to protect him against tbe defense of a want of consideration? We answer, no. Tbe consideration paid by him was merely nominal. It is as if tbe note bad been given to him, and be should claim tbe…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matthews v. PoythressSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Anderson v. . NicholasNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Brown v. TaberNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by7 opinions
- Koeber v. SomersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Lay v. WissmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Heath v. Silverthorn Lead Mining & Smelting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Hogg v. ThurmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Hoppin v. DotyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.