Legal Opinion
Arcanum National Bank v. Hessler
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 1982No. 81-751PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKrupansky, J.
The sole issue in this case is whether appellee is a holder in due course who takes the note free from appellant’s defense of want of consideration.
In a suit by the holder of a note against the maker, the holder obtains a great advantage if granted the status of holder in due course. R. C. Chapter 1303 (Article 3, U.C.C.) provides that a holder in due course takes the instrument free from most defenses and claims.1 One such defense which is of no avail when raised against a holder in due course is want of consideration, the defense raised by appellant.
Whether one is a holder in due course is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Unico v. OwenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
- American Plan Corp. v. WoodsOhio Court of Appeals · 1968
- First Nat. Bank of Linton v. Otto Huber & Sons, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 1975
- Rood v. McCannOhio Court of Appeals · 1957
- Security Central National Bank v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. HerboltOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
- Drown v. Perfect (In Re Giaimo)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- Midfirst Bank v. C.W. Haynes & Co. a South Carolina Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1994
- A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Laminaciones De Lesaca, S.A. And Altos Hornos De Vizcaya, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- C & J Vantage Leasing Co. v. Outlook Farm Golf Club, LLCSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.