Legal Opinion

Wright v. Spencer

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1927No. 4659PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

This is an action on a promissory note by one claiming to be a holder in due course, etc. The defense of fraud by the payee named in the note, assignor of the holder, was interposed. At the first trial, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, respondent here, and on appeal this court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. (Wright v. Spencer,39 Idaho 60, 226 P. 173), saying:

". . . . We conclude that, when appellant alleged and proved that the title of the corporation which negotiated the instrument to respondent was defective, because of the fraud practiced, the burden was on…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McAllister v. BardsleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  2. First National Bank v. PondIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Wright v. SpencerIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
  4. State v. BoyleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wright v. GerberIdaho Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API