Mason v. Noonan
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL PROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY COURT. This was an action brought by the respondent as indorsee of a promissory note against the appellants as the makers thereof.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY COURT. This was an action brought by the respondent as indorsee of a promissory note against the appellants as the makers thereof. The complaint alleged that the defendants are, and at the date of the making of the promissory note hereinafter mentioned, were partners under the firm, name and style of Noonan & McNab, and that they did heretofore, at Milwaukee, make their promissory note in writing, bearing date the 11th day of May, A. D. 1857, whereby they promised to pay, six months after the date thereof, for value received, to certain persons therein styled…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
In order to attack the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of Davis vs. Pawlette, 3 Wis., *618R 300, the counsel for the appellants takes for granted a position ■which he is not authorized to assume, which is, that the note sued upon was transferred to the respondents by the payees after it became due. The general rule is that an indorsement, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is always presumed to have been made at or about the date of the note. And in a suit by an indorsee against the maker, the production of the note has been holden to be prima facie…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Webster v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Commonwealth v. MagowanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Burnham v. WebsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1841
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bates v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Judge of County CourtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Roach v. Sanborn Land Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Wilson v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1870