Munn v. Boasberg
New York Court of Appeals
I. Plaintiff having proved that the check was delivered for a special purpose, and the check having been diverted from that purpose, the burden is on the defendant to show that he is the holder in due course. (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 98; Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Diefen-dorf, 123 N. Y. 191.) II. The defendant cannot be a holder in due course because he is the payee of the check. (142 A. L. B. 489; Jones v. Waring é Gillow [1926] A. C. 670.) III.
Read the full summary
I. Plaintiff having proved that the check was delivered for a special purpose, and the check having been diverted from that purpose, the burden is on the defendant to show that he is the holder in due course. (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 98; Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Diefen-dorf, 123 N. Y. 191.) II. The defendant cannot be a holder in due course because he is the payee of the check. (142 A. L. B. 489; Jones v. Waring é Gillow [1926] A. C. 670.) III. Even if it is assumed that the owner may be the holder in due course, the court below erred in holding as a matter of law that the defendant was…
1Opinion of the CourtThacher, J.
Plaintiff-appellant brought suit to recover from the defendant the sum of $775, the amount of a check drawn to defendant’s order by the plaintiff. The defendant was president of the Blossom Heath Country Club on Sheridan Drive in the town of Amherst. It owned a golf course, a clubhouse and considerable acreage of land. On a Saturday afternoon in January of 1942, one George Shuman, who owned the capital stock of the Country Club, called on the defendant and told him that the utility companies were threatening to discontinue service at the Country Club and that their bills would have to be paid…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bischoff v. . Yorkville BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Armstrong v. American Exchange Nat. Bank of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ward v. City Trust Co. of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Wen Kroy Realty Co. v. Public National Bank & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Sims v. . U.S. Trust Co. of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. American Express Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Shapiro v. McNeillNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Otten v. MarascoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Kerr Steamship Co. v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia & ChinaNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Borrello v. Perera Company, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.