Horton v. Bayne
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. When the maker of a note endorsed before maturity proves lack of consideration therefor, the burden of proof is on the holder, to prove that he received it for value.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. When the maker of a note endorsed before maturity proves lack of consideration therefor, the burden of proof is on the holder, to prove that he received it for value. (Story on Bills, 215, § 193; Bryant and Stratton’s Commercial Law, 174, § 365 ; Rogers vs. Morton, 12 Wend., 484; Munroe vs. Cooper, 5 Pick., 412.) The holder of any negotiable paper before it is due, is not bound to prove that he is a bona fide holder for value, without notice. (Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Peters, 15; Story on Promissory Notes, (Ed. 1868,) 510, § 381; Potter vs. McDowell,. 43 Mo.,…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Plaintiff, Horton, brought suit in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Bayne on a negotiable promissory note, executed and delivered by the latter to one Partridge.
*532The petition, after the usual averments, states that the note sued on was, before its maturity, indorsed by Partridge for value and delivered to plaintiff.
The answer of Bayne admits the execution of the note, as charged in the petition ; admits the transfer by indorsement of the note from Partridge to plaintiff, but claims that such indorsement was without consideration, and fraudulently made in order to cut off the defendant from…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Capital Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Mayes v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Keim v. VetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Daniel v. SpaethCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.