Woodward v. Rodgers
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note. The answer of defendant avers that the note, in its body and signature, is a forgery; that the payee of the note, one Pond, procured the signature of defendant thereto by fraud, and that plaintiff is not a bona fide holder, and did not pay a valuable consideration for the note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note. The answer of defendant avers that the note, in its body and signature, is a forgery; that the payee of the note, one Pond, procured the signature of defendant thereto by fraud, and that plaintiff is not a bona fide holder, and did not pay a valuable consideration for the note. Upon the trial defendant introduced evidence tending to prove that the note sued on was procured by the fraud of the payee, and was given without consideration; but there was no evidence tending to prove that plaintiff was not a bona fide holder of…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
— The rule of the authorities unquestionably is, that when the defense to a note is fraud in its inception, and such defense is supported by evidence, the onus is thereby cast upon the holder, who brings the action, to show that he gave value for it, and that he is a Iona fide purchaser before maturity. This is a well-settled and familiar doctrine. Lane v. Krekle, 22 Iowa, 400; Hall v. Featherstone, 3 Hurl. & Norm. 284; Munroe v. Cooper, 5 Pick. 412; Aldrich v. Warren, 16 Me. 465; Perrin v. Noyes, 39 id. 384; Catlin v. Hansen, 1 Duer, 309; 2 Pars, on Notes and Bills, 438; Story on Prom.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Catlin v. HansenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- Aldrich v. WarrenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1840
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commercial Bank of Essex v. PaddickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Rock Island National Bank v. NelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- First National Bank v. GetzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895