Legal Opinion
Columbia River Door Co. v. Timms
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 20, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
It is not necessary for us to determine what the rights of plaintiff would have been prior to the enactment in this state of Negotiable Instruments Law. Plaintiff refers the court to 3 R. O. L., page 881, Section 66, note 15:
“That the omission to insert in an instrument the name of a payee is not a feature or a defect which affects negotiability seems to be well settled by authority. The effect of the omission to name a payee is to invest any bona fide holder with the authority to fill the blank left for that purpose by the drawer or maker.”
Accepting this quotation as authority cited by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vander Ploeg v. Van ZuukSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Simpson v. First Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Hartington National Bank v. BreslinNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Cache Valley Commission Co. v. Genter Sales Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1924
- Paschke v. StollerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by3 opinions
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Pittsburg Pipe & Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- SFC Acceptance Corp. v. SpainSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1968
- In Re FerraraNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1931