Voss v. Smith

4 Citing cases

  1. Sharp v. Kelsey

    86 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1939)   Cited 1 times

    This burden is placed upon him by statute. Section 11358, O. S. 1931 (48 Okla. Stat. Ann. sec. 129). See, also, Voss v. Smith, 98 Okla. 90, 224 P. 328; Sharp v. Young, 182 Okla. 596, 78 P.2d 815; Sharp v. Meyers, supra. In Sharp v. Young, supra, when called upon to decide the same problem with which we are confronted here, this court said:

  2. Sharp v. Meyers

    77 P.2d 1135 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    The presumption indulged the plaintiff as to his being a holder in due course under section 11358, O. S. 1931, thereupon gave way in the face of this evidence, and the burden then passed to the plaintiff to prove he was a holder in due course. Voss v. Smith, 98 Okla. 90, 224 P. 328; Lambert v. Smith, 53 Okla. 606, 157 P. 909; and Moore v. First Nat. Bank of Iowa City, 30 Okla. 623, 121 P. 626. The very failure of the plaintiff in this respect tended to destroy the plaintiff's case.

  3. Cohen v. Superior Oil Corporation

    71 P.2d 626 (Okla. 1937)   Cited 1 times

    "There being evidence of fraud in the procurement of the note, under the statute the burden was upon the plaintiff, and not upon the defendant, to prove that he acquired title to the note in due course, which, as we have seen, includes proof that it was taken in good faith, and that at the time the purchaser had no knowledge of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in Vennum's title." This construction has been uniformly followed by this court in the following cases: Voris v. Birdsall, 62 Okla. 286, 162 P. 951; Besse v. Morgan, 84 Okla. 203, 202 P. 1012; Union State Bank v. Mayor, 88 Okla. 230, 212 P. 987; Jenkins v. Helms, 89 Okla. 77, 213 P. 322; Messman v. Wilt, 91 Okla. 240, 217 P. 412; Voss v. Smith, 98 Okla. 90, 224 P. 328; Glasco v. Wall, 99 Okla. 253, 226 P. 572; Hamil v. Joyner, 103 Okla. 216, 229 P. 768; Sutherland v. First National Bank, 119 Okla. 278, 249 P. 715; Board of Education v. American Natl. Co., 135 Okla. 253, 275 P. 285. Claimant contends that under the cases of Loomis v. Cole, 119 Okla. 203, 249 P. 327, and Stevens v. Pierce, 79 Okla. 290, 193 P. 417, 18 A. L. R. 7, the burden of showing bad faith on the part of the holder in acquiring the note is upon the maker and not upon the holder.

  4. Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. Peoples Bank

    99 W. Va. 544 (W. Va. 1925)   Cited 18 times
    In Merchants' Bank Trust Co. v. People's Bank, 99 W. Va. 544, 565, 130 S.E. 142, 150 (1925), we found that the cashier of a bank, who without authority issues and delivers a certificate of deposit to another who made no deposit of money, is considered to be acting as the bank's agent; however, because "a person dealing with an agent, knowing that he acts only by virtue of a delegated power, must at his peril see that the paper on which he relies comes within the power under which the agent acts."

    And in addition to the statute, we refer to cases cited by counsel, holding that proof of fraud in the procurement of the instrument shifts the burden of proof to the holder. Arnett v. Sanderson, (Ariz.), 218 P. 986; Wright v. Spencer, (Ida.), 226 P. 173; Varney v. Nat. City Bank, (Ind.), 139 N.E. 326; Bank of Varena v. Sherron, (N.C.), 119 S.E. 497; Voss v. Smith, (Okla.), 224 P. 328; Howard Nat. Bank v. Wilson, (Vt.), 120 A. 889. But counsel for plaintiff interpose the proposition that, assuming the alleged fraud in the inception of the paper, and of those subsequently dealing with it, the defendant, after knowing all the facts, ratified the transaction by adopting it and taking the benefits thereof.