Clark v. Associates Discount Corp.

It is conceded by counsel for the defendants that, since the plaintiff was apparently the holder in due course of the note, tíre defendants could not defend the action on the ground that the consideration for which the note was given failed, unless their pleadings further disclosed facts showing that the plaintiff was not in fact the holder in due course. The pleadings show simply that the note was on a form furnished by the plaintiff, and was made payable to its offices or place of business. That a note *584is taken on a form furnished by an indorsee, and made payable at its offices, does not…