Kinyon v. Wohlford
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action on a promissory note, brought in the district court for Steele county, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a neAV trial,, which was denied, and he appeals to this court from the order denying such new trial. A single point only is discussed in the appeal, which is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Berry, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note payable by its terms to C. W. Stevens, or bearer, and signed by the defendant.
There was plenary evidence showing that the plaintiff is a bona fide holder of the note, having purchased the same before maturity in good faith, without notice and for value.
The only defence urged here is that there Avas no delivery *240of the note to any person by or on behalf of the defendant; that for want of delivery it is not the note of defendant, and he is not liable thereon even to a bona fide holder. “A bona fide holder for value, without notice,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Shipley v. CarrollIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Catlin v. HansenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- Powers v. BallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
3Cited by8 opinions
- Massachusetts National Bank v. SnowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- First National Bank of Parkersburg v. JohnsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Bombolaski v. First National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913
- Long Island Loan & Trust Co. v. Columbus, C. & I. C. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1895
- C. B. Ensign & Co. v. ForrestMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.