Irvington Trust Co. v. Maurer

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Irvington Trust Co. v. Maurer

156 A. 428, 108 N.J.L. 404, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 276

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 19, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A. 428 (Irvington Trust Co. v. Maurer) 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

Irvington Trust Co. v. Maurer, 156 A. 428, 108 N.J.L. 404, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 276 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, and with the exception of one point, for the reasons given in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court, ubi supra.

The exception is this: The Supreme Court seems to have treated the question of the plaintiff being a holder of the note in due course as one of presumption, and that the burden of proving the contrary was on the defendant. See 8 N. J. *405 Mis. R. 567. But this appears to overlook the exception in section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments act (Comp. Stat., pp. 3741, 3742), that “when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course.” See De Jonge & Co. v. Woodport Hotel and Land Co., 77 N. J. L. 233. However, our examination of the case satisfies us that the plaintiff fully sustained this burden, even for purposes oí a summary judgment over answer, and the judgment under review will accordingly be affirmed.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, and with the exception of one point, for the reasons given in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court, ubi supra.

The exception is this: The Supreme Court seems to have treated the question of the plaintiff being a holder of the note in due course as one of presumption, and that the burden of proving the contrary was on the defendant. See 8 N. J. *405 Mis. R. 567. But this appears to overlook the exception in section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments act (Comp. Stat., pp. 3741, 3742), that “when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course.” See De Jonge & Co. v. Woodport Hotel and Land Co., 77 N. J. L. 233. However, our examination of the case satisfies us that the plaintiff fully sustained this burden, even for purposes oí a summary judgment over answer, and the judgment under review will accordingly be affirmed.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A. 428, 108 N.J.L. 404, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irvington-trust-co-v-maurer-nj-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack