Jones v. Approved Bancredit Corp.
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
HERRMANN, Justice:
The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff finance company is a holder in due course of the defendant’s note. We hold that the finance company was not a holder in due course under the party-to-the-transaction rule.
I
The relevant facts are undisputed for present purposes:
The defendant, Myrtle V. Jones, owned a lot of land in Delaware and wished to have a house built on it. She responded to a newspaper advertisement by Albee Dell Homes, Inc. (hereinafter “Dell”), a sales agency for pre-cut homes in Elkton, Maryland. After selecting a type of house from…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Unico v. OwenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
- Commercial Credit Company v. ChildsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
- Mutual Finance Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. Orange County MacHine WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Buffalo Industrial Bank v. De MarzioBuffalo City Court · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. v. First National Bank of BostonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Bowling Green, Inc. v. State Street Bank and Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- Raymond Whitlock, George Tree and Lily Tree v. Midwest Acceptance Corporation and Oliver Auto Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
- Wilmington Trust Company v. Delaware Auto SalesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1970
- Kaw Valley State Bank & Trust Co. v. RiddleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.