Bissell v. Gowdy
Supreme Court of Connecticut
AssuiMPSiT, brought by the plaintiff as indorsee, against the defendant as maker of the following note. Broad Brook, Nov. 19,1859. “ Thirty days after date I promise to pay to Eli Gowdy or order, eleven hundred thirty-six dollars, value received. A. E. Gowdy.” The note was indorsed by the payee as follows:— “ For value received I hereby warrant the within note good and collectible till January 1, 1861. Eli Gowdy.”
Read the full summary
AssuiMPSiT, brought by the plaintiff as indorsee, against the defendant as maker of the following note. Broad Brook, Nov. 19,1859. “ Thirty days after date I promise to pay to Eli Gowdy or order, eleven hundred thirty-six dollars, value received. A. E. Gowdy.” The note was indorsed by the payee as follows:— “ For value received I hereby warrant the within note good and collectible till January 1, 1861. Eli Gowdy.” The case was tried in the superior court on the general issue, closed to the court, the defendant filing notice that he should offer evidence to show that the note was given for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Hinhan, c. J.
The note in question was given for the price of spirituous liquors sold by the payee to the maker in 1859, and as between those parties was undoubtedly void, under the 27th section of the act for the suppression of intemperance. But the plaintiff took it in good faith, paying for it a full and valuable consideration, and as he had no notice of any illegality in its inception or transfer, he claims that it became a valid security in his hands, under the provision in the same section of the statute, which declares that “ nothing in this section shall affect in any way negotiable…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hendrix v. Bauhard Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Tomlinson Carriage Co. v. KinsellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Carpenter v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Tompkins v. Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1882