State Trading Corp. v. Rosen

This action was brought by the indorsee of a trade acceptance against the maker. The facts were stipulated between the parties, and it was agreed that if the instrument was negotiable the plaintiff was to be regarded as a bona fide holder for value and entitled to recover. If the instrument was not negotiable, judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant. The instrument was in the following form:

“No. Api. 11, 1938.

To Carroll Cut Rate (H. D. Rosen)

Milford, Conn.

The obligation of the acceptor hereof arises out of the purchase of goods from the drawer, maturity being in conformity with…