Legal Opinion

State Bank of Alcester v. Weeks

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1922No. File No. 4985PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPolley, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment on a promissory note, and defendant appeals.

The defense is that the note was procured by fraud, want of consideration, and failure tO' prove title. Plaintiff admits the note was obtained from defendant by false and fraudulent representations; but plaintiff is an indorsee of the note, and claims that it is entitled to recover as a “holder in due course.” Defendant contends, among other defenses, that it does not appear from the note itself, nor from any evidence in the record, that the note was indorsed by a person having authority so to do, and that the note is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Vickery v. BurtonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Scotland County National Bank v. HohnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Spicer v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Pingree Nat. Bank of Ogden v. McFarlandUtah Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Curran v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bear Butte Valley BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Central Loan & Investment Co. v. LoiseauSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Commercial State Bank v. IversonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Security Holding Co. v. ChristensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. McGaaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API