Legal Opinion

National Bank on Barre v. Foley

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1907PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Action on. a promissory note. Trial by court without a jury.

1Opinion of the CourtPound, J.

Thomas E. Eagan, the payee, negotiated the note in suit made by the defendant under the name and style of Foley Brothers, in breach of faith. The burden is, therefore, on plaintiff to show that it, or the Barre Supply Co., under which it claims title, acquired title as a holder in due course. Neg. Inst. Law, § 98.

First. Do the proofs establish that the Barre Supply Co. acquired title as a holder in due course? Did it acquire title to the note in good faith? Proof that it parted with value for the note before maturity is not enough. Canajoharie N. Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 N. Y. 191.

The company…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Canajoharie National Bank v. DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Vosburgh v. . DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Citizens' State Bank v. . CowlesNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
  4. Albany County Bank v. People's Co-operative Ice Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  5. Roseman v. MahonyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ashley & Rumelin v. BradyIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Ranchmens Trust Co. v. GillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  3. Harford National Bank v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API