Martin v. Smylee
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Ray County. I. Fraud in tlie execution of a note, negotiable in its character, does not afFect its validity in the hands of a bona fide purchaser before maturity for value, in the usual course of trade. (Kent. Com. 9 Ed., Yol. 3, §§ 79, 80 ; Story Prom.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Ray County. I. Fraud in tlie execution of a note, negotiable in its character, does not afFect its validity in the hands of a bona fide purchaser before maturity for value, in the usual course of trade. (Kent. Com. 9 Ed., Yol. 3, §§ 79, 80 ; Story Prom. Notes, 4 Ed., p. 193 n. 2 ; Farmers’ Bank vs. Garten, 34 Mo., 119; Mattoon vs. McDaniel, 34 Mo., 138; Tumilty vs. Bank of Mo., 13 Mo., 275.) Appellants had no knowledge of any fraud in the original execution of the note, nor were there any circumstances surrounding its purchase that would excite the suspicion of a prudent man.…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This case is identical in principle with the case of Briggs vs. Ewart, (51 Mo., 245,) and must be controlled and governed by it. The present case was an action commenced on a negotiable promissory note made by the defendant and assigned to the ■ plaintiffs before maturity. The defense was, that it was never signed by the defendant as a note; that one England came to the defendant’s house, and wanted him to take the agency for the sale of a patent gang plow; that he consented and was told that it was necessary for him to sign a contract of agency, which all agents were required to sign; that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Briggs v. EwartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by10 opinions
- Shirt v. OverjohnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Corby v. WeddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Green v. WilkieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- DeCamp v. HammaOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- Nugent v. CurranSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.