Legal Opinion

Implement Credit Corp. v. Elsinger

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1954PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

The issue presented on this appeal is whether the plaintiff finance company is a holder in due course of the note executed by the defendant Elsinger so as to be free from any defense that Elsinger might have against the payee Bier-man-Turnacliff, Inc. Counsel for the defendant advances the following reasons as to why he contends plaintiff is not such a holder in due course:(1) That proof of ownership of the note in plaintiff is not established;(2) That the note was transferred by the payee by means of an assignment which purported to transfer only the “title and interest” of the payee, and,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Thorp v. MindemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Commercial Credit Company v. ChildsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  3. Mutual Finance Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  4. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Orange County MacHine WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Crosby v. RoubWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. James Talcott, Inc. v. ShulmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
  2. United States v. TholenDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1960
  3. International Finance Corporation v. RiegerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  4. Westfield Investment Co. v. FellersNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
  5. Davis v. WestDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API