McCarty v. Louisville Banking Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 2 — PETITIONS ORDINARY APPEALS FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In an action on a note by the endorsee against the maker an answer alleging fraud in the inception of the note places the burden of proving good faith on plaintiff. (Thamling v. Duffy, 37 Pac.
Read the full summary
Case 2 — PETITIONS ORDINARY APPEALS FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In an action on a note by the endorsee against the maker an answer alleging fraud in the inception of the note places the burden of proving good faith on plaintiff. (Thamling v. Duffy, 37 Pac. Rep., 363.) 2. When the maker of a negotiable paper show's that it has been obtained from him by fraud, a subsequent transferee must, before he can recover, show7 that he was a bona fide purchaser; and, also, that he had no notice or knowledge of the fraud. (Bank v. Green, 43 N. X., 298; Bank v. Noxon, 45 N. Y., 762; Bank v. Carroll, 55…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LANDES
delivered the opinion or the court:
These two cases involve the same questions, both of fact and of law, and by agreement were heard together in the court below and also in this court.
The trial below was by the court, without the intervention of a jury, and, by request of the defendants, the court stated in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.
The action in each case was upon a promissory note executed to one R. M. Conway — in one case by the appellants, W. M. McCarty and S. S. McCarty, and in the other by the appellants, E. E. Owsley, W. L.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. SchmidtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Melton v. Pensacola Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- Citizens Trust & Guaranty Co. v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Gibbs v. MetcalfCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Cochran's Adm'x v. YeiserCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943