Eastern Tire Co. v. Goukler

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Eastern Tire Co. v. Goukler

146 A. 690, 7 N.J. Misc. 626, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 199

DecidedJuly 3, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A. 690 (Eastern Tire Co. v. Goukler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eastern Tire Co. v. Goukler, 146 A. 690, 7 N.J. Misc. 626, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 199 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This was an action to recover the amount of a cheek, given by defendant, for $440. The case was heard by the judge of the District Court, without a jury.

[627]*627The plaintiff proved that it took the cheek on the day it bore date, partly in payment of tires, and party for cash; that on presentation the check was not paid. The defendant’s contention was illegality in the contract; this illegality consisting of the fact that it was given for the purchase of liquors. The trial judge, deeming this a good defense, rendered judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

In thus ruling we think there was error. "Under the proofs plaintiff was a holder in due course (Rice v. Barrington, 75 N. J. L. 806), and as such was entitled to recover the amount of the check. Assuming that the evidence offered'by the defendant established that a sale of intoxicating liquors was the consideration for which the check was given, this was not a defense against a tona fide holder, whatever the effect of the illegal consideration might bo as between the immediate parties. Pamph. L. 1902, p. 593, § 57; 8 C. J. 767, 768.

The judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

This was an action to recover the amount of a cheek, given by defendant, for $440. The case was heard by the judge of the District Court, without a jury.

[627]*627The plaintiff proved that it took the cheek on the day it bore date, partly in payment of tires, and party for cash; that on presentation the check was not paid. The defendant’s contention was illegality in the contract; this illegality consisting of the fact that it was given for the purchase of liquors. The trial judge, deeming this a good defense, rendered judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

In thus ruling we think there was error. "Under the proofs plaintiff was a holder in due course (Rice v. Barrington, 75 N. J. L. 806), and as such was entitled to recover the amount of the check. Assuming that the evidence offered'by the defendant established that a sale of intoxicating liquors was the consideration for which the check was given, this was not a defense against a tona fide holder, whatever the effect of the illegal consideration might bo as between the immediate parties. Pamph. L. 1902, p. 593, § 57; 8 C. J. 767, 768.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A. 690, 7 N.J. Misc. 626, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-tire-co-v-goukler-nj-1929.