Republic National Bank v. Bobo

8 Citing cases

  1. Bird Finance Corp. v. Lamerson

    303 Mich. 422 (Mich. 1942)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing the notice provision under pre-Uniform Commercial Code Law

    Plaintiff has the burden of proving that it purchased the note in good faith, for value, before notice of the infirmity was communicated to it. Drovers' National Bank v. Blue, 110 Mich. 31 (64 Am. St. Rep. 327); Stevens v. Venema, 202 Mich. 232 (L.R.A. 1918 F, 1145); Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6; Miller v. Commercial State Savings Bank, 227 Mich. 316; Fox River Valley State Bank v. East, 229 Mich. 698; Newall v. Bridges, 251 Mich. 384; Mercantile Discount Corp. v. Henderson Milling Co., 259 Mich. 88. Were we called upon to consider whether Bird Son, Inc., a foreign corporation doing business in this State, and the concern that manufactured and sold the product, was a party to the fraud, there would be more difficulty in finding it free from connection with the fraud. However, Bird Son, Inc., is not the holder of the note.

  2. Stephenson v. Golden

    279 Mich. 710 (Mich. 1937)   Cited 101 times
    Defining an "agent" in part as "one who acts for or in the place of another by authority from him; one who undertakes to transact some business or manage some affairs for another by authority and on account of the latter, and to render an account to it...."

    One acquiring title from a fraudulent grantor has the burden of proving that he paid value and took without notice of the fraud. Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373 (18 Am. Rep. 192); Letson v. Reed, 45 Mich. 27; Ripley v. Seligman, supra; Whitaker Iron Co. v. Preston National Bank of Detroit, 101 Mich. 146; Cappon Bertsch Leather Co. v. Preston Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 114 Mich. 263; Pinkerton Bros. Co. v. Bromley, 128 Mich. 236; Hogan v. Railway, 140 Mich. 101; John Schweyer Co. v. Mellon, 196 Mich. 590; Harrison v. Grier, 198 Mich. 672; Republic Nat'l Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6; Cronin v. Palm, 244 Mich. 306. Defendant Jaffe did not sustain this burden.

  3. Central State Bank v. Zelli

    244 N.W. 503 (Mich. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    The testimony is not satisfying that appellant acted in good faith. The following cases present somewhat similar issues, though of course the facts differ: Goodrich v. McDonald, 77 Mich. 486; Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6. "It is not the mere denial of knowledge by the plaintiff that entitles him to an instruction in his favor on such an issue.

  4. New Jersey Title G. T. Co. v. McGrath

    224 N.W. 755 (Mich. 1929)   Cited 6 times

    "If plaintiff discounted the note and credited the Lynch Construction Company's account with the proceeds, it was necessary, in view of the defense, for plaintiff to show that the Lynch Construction Company had exhausted that credit at the maturity of the note. Central Savings Bank v. Stotter, 207 Mich. 329; Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6; 3 R. C. L. p. 1055. "It being necessary for plaintiff to show the credit had been exhausted at the maturity of the note, in order to be a bona fide holder for value, the question arises whether the manner in which plaintiff sought to show it was competent."

  5. American Surety Co. v. Savings Bank

    219 N.W. 689 (Mich. 1928)   Cited 3 times

    "If plaintiff discounted the note and credited the Lynch Construction Company's account with the proceeds, it was necessary, in view of the defense, for plaintiff to show that the Lynch Construction Company had exhausted that credit at the maturity of the note." See, also, Drovers' National Bank v. Blue, 110 Mich. 31 (64 Am. St. Rep. 327); Central Savings Bank v. Stotter, 207 Mich. 329; Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6. We conclude that defendant was not upon this record the holder in due course of the check in question and that under such circumstances the great weight of authority sustains the plaintiff's right to recover in this action.

  6. Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. McGrath

    239 Mich. 404 (Mich. 1927)   Cited 5 times

    If plaintiff discounted the note and credited the Lynch Construction Company's account with the proceeds, it was necessary, in view of the defense, for plaintiff to show that the Lynch Construction Company had exhausted that credit at the maturity of the note. Central Savings Bank v. Stotter, 207 Mich. 329; Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6; 3 R. C. L. p. 1055. It being necessary for plaintiff to show the credit had been exhausted at the maturity of the note, in order to be a bona fide holder for value, the question arises whether the manner in which plaintiff sought to show it was competent.

  7. Fox River Valley State Bank v. East

    202 N.W. 971 (Mich. 1925)   Cited 2 times

    We have recently discussed the question whether one can be a holder in due course under such circumstances. Republic National Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6. There is another serious question whether the notes sued on were negotiable by reason of the uncertainty in the time of payment and because of the stipulation which they contained with reference to attorney fees.

  8. First Nat. Bank v. Cross Napper

    157 So. 636 (La. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 2 times

    Beutel's Fifth Edition of Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law, pp. 330 and 331, has the following to say: "Although Section 25 clearly provides that any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract constitutes value, the majority of the courts have tenaciously clung to the old common law rule that mere crediting of an account is not value. Tatum v. Com. Bank Trust Co., 185 Ala. 249, 64 So. 561; Ashley State Bank v. Hood, 47 Idaho, 780, 279 P. 418 (not citing the N. I. L.); Varney v. Nat. City Bank, 80 Ind. App. 598, 139 N. E. 326; McNight v. Parsons, 136 Iowa, 390, 113 N. W. 858, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 718, 15 Ann. Cas. 665, 125 Am. St. Rep. 265; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Marden, Orth Hastings Co., 234 Mass. 161, 125 N. E. 384; Savings Bank v. Schaal, 156 Minn. 424, 195 N. W. 141; Republic Nat. Bank v. Bobo, 227 Mich. 6, 198 N. W. 176; Hightstown Trust Company v. Amer. Equity Corp., 144 A. 599, 7 N.J. Misc. 135; 2 Dak. L. Rev. 458; Citizens' State Bank v. Cowles, 180 N. Y. 346, 73 N. E. 33, 105 Am. St. Rep. 765; Abraham v. Am. Ex. Nat. Bank, 191 App. Div. 594, 181 N. Y. S. 663; Sobel v. Engels (Sup.) 188 N. Y. S. 436; Mechanics Metals Nat. Bank v. Termini, 117 Misc. 309, 191 N. Y. S. 334; Albany County Bank v. People's Co-operative Ice Company, 92 App. Div. 47, 86 N. Y. S. 773; Toledo Cooker Company v. First Nat. Bank of Madison (Ohio App.) 153 N. E. 856 (not citing the Negotiable Instruments Law); State v. Emery, 73 Okl. 36, 174 P. 770, 6 A. L. R. 234; Port Washington State Bank v. Polonia Phonograph Co., 180 Wis. 71, 192 N. W. 472; Bridgeton Nat. Bank v. Way, 253 F. 731, 165 C.C.A. 665; Southern Trust Company v. Vaughn, 277 F. 145 (C.C.A., Okl.); Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326, 110 N. W. 192. "It is submitted that this is an erroneous result and is in the teeth of the statute.