Aldrich v. Warren
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Whitman C. J. presiding. Assumpsit upon a note of hand, signed by the defendant, dated August 20, 1835, and payable to Barzillai Latham, or bearer, at the Casco Bank in Portland, in ninety days, for the sum of $406,50. The defendant rested his defence upon the ground, that the note was obtained by fraud, and was without consideration, and that the plaintiff was not an innocent holder of the note for a valuable consideration.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Whitman C. J. presiding. Assumpsit upon a note of hand, signed by the defendant, dated August 20, 1835, and payable to Barzillai Latham, or bearer, at the Casco Bank in Portland, in ninety days, for the sum of $406,50. The defendant rested his defence upon the ground, that the note was obtained by fraud, and was without consideration, and that the plaintiff was not an innocent holder of the note for a valuable consideration. To make out his defence, the defendant offered the deposition of one Hoyt, parts of which were objected to, but the whole was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
The law is well settled, that where a note, or other negotiable paper, is shown to have been fraudulent in its inception, or to have been fraudulently put into circulation, the burthen is thrown upon the holder, to prove that he came by the possession fairly, without any knowledge of the fraud. It is not enough merely to show, that it was negotiated before its maturity. It must appear to have been done fairly, in the due course of business, unattended with any circumstances, justly calculated to awaken suspicion. This doctrine is established by the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Montgomery Southern Railway Co. v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Woodward v. RodgersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871