Legal Opinion

First State Bank of Humbird v. Cox

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The trial court found that plaintiff was not a holder in due course, and probably the basis for such finding was due to the fact that the note was indorsed “Wisconsin Limestone Company” instead of West Wisconsin Limestone Company. The court’s finding in that respect was “That said note was indorsed on its back as follows: ‘Wisconsin Limestone Company, by George L., Jacques, Pres.,’ but the same was never indorsed or delivered by the payee therein named and said note was not complete and regular upon its face when taken by the plaintiff bank.”

There is no question but that the note was indorsed…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Knox v. CliffordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Lawless v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Jewett v. WhalenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Adams v. Madison Realty & Development, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  2. First National Bank v. MenseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932
  3. Luebke v. City of WatertownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Adams v. Madison Realty & DevelopmentCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
  5. Swanson v. Fuline CorporationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API