Hamilton v. Marks
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Linn Cotmty Court of Common Pleas If the maker prove the note had been obtained from him by fraud, or was fraudulently put in circulation by the payee, the holder must prove that he took it honestly, without knowledge of the fraud.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Linn Cotmty Court of Common Pleas If the maker prove the note had been obtained from him by fraud, or was fraudulently put in circulation by the payee, the holder must prove that he took it honestly, without knowledge of the fraud. (Story on Promissory Notes (5th Ed.) § 196, and note; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 188, and note (A); Bailey vs. Bidwell, 13 Meeson & Welsby, 73 ; Woodhull vs. Holmes, 10 John., 231 ; Vallett vs. Parker, 6 Wend., 622 ; Small vs. Smith, 1 Denio, 583, 586 ; Monroe vs. Cooper, 5 Pickering, 412 ; Vathir vs. Zane, 6 Gratt., 246 ; Ross vs. Bedell, 5…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a promissory note, executed by the defendants, to one T. H. Cooley, and by Cooley assigned to plaintiff before maturity. The separate answers of the defendant Marks set up a conditional sale of a farm to him by Cooley, that the conveyance was made to him for the purpose of making the sale to one Walker, and that the note was executed simply to secure Cooley iu the faithful discharge by Marks of the trust; and that in case no sale should be made to Walker before maturity of the note, the note was to be void.
This answer also set up a fraudulent conspiracy between Walker…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ayer v. HutchinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Hall v. HaleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mangold v. BaconSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Mayes v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Edwards v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Link v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- City Water Co. v. City of SedaliaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.