Griffith v. Hanks
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court.— Hon. B. E. Turner, Judge. (1) TJnder tlie plea of non est factum, the testimony-offered to show the consideration of the note was clearly inadmissible in evidence. The doctrine is now well established that, a negotiable note in the hands of an innocent holder for value is protected from all inquiry into its consideration. Bennettv.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court.— Hon. B. E. Turner, Judge. (1) TJnder tlie plea of non est factum, the testimony-offered to show the consideration of the note was clearly inadmissible in evidence. The doctrine is now well established that, a negotiable note in the hands of an innocent holder for value is protected from all inquiry into its consideration. Bennettv. Torbina, 56 Mo. 309; Merrick v. Phillips, 58 Mo. 436; Hamilton v. Marks,' 63 Mo. 167 ; Durkee ». Chambers, 57 Mo. 575; Sheets v. Over-john, 60 Mo. 305; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59. It would seem that this testimony must…
1Opinion of the CourtRay, J.
This was a suit upon a negotiable promissory note. The note bore date December 21, 1880; was for the sum of two hundred and ten dollars, payable to the order of Eagle Machine Works, at Citizens’ Bank, Memphis, Missouri, six months after date, and purported to have been executed and signed by, arid in the name of, John C. Hanks, the defendant, and also purported to have been assigned to plaintiff, for value, before maturity. The answer was the plea of “ non est factum,” supported by affidavit. The reply, the general issue.
At the trial, before a jury, the evidence was, substantially, as follows…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Harrison v. BartlettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Waldo v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1838
- Pogue v. State ex rel. HarbinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1850
- Hoyt v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by8 opinions
- Durant v. Lexington Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Nolan v. JohnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Metropolitan Rubber Co. v. Monarch Rubber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Boggs v. Pacific Steam Laundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Matson v. FrazerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.