Jerman v. Edwards

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Jerman v. Edwards

29 App. D.C. 535, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5481

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1907

DocketNo. 1756

StatusPublished

This text of 29 App. D.C. 535 (Jerman v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jerman v. Edwards, 29 App. D.C. 535, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5481 (D.C. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think there was no error in the action of the court. Assuming, as contended for the appellants, that the note had been actually indorsed by Benjamin F. Edwards to the savings bank for collection for his account, the bank failed to collect it, and returned it presumably to him. Plaintiff’s title as holder did not pass under that indorsement, but through the delivery to her by Benjamin F. Edwards, who appeared as a witness on her behalf. She took title by delivery under the blank indorsement of the payee, Jerman, the effect of which was to make the note payable to bearer, and pass by delivery. Code, sec. 1338 [31 Stat. at L. 1399, chap. 854]. Whether the further indorsement, if in fact made by Benjamin F. Edwards, was a restrictive one, as defined in sec. 1341 [31 Stat..at L. 1400, chap. 854] is a question of no materiality, as the plaintiff did not claim the title thereunder, and there was no defense to the note as against either Benjamin F. Edwards, the savings bank, or the plaintiff. This indorsement not being necessary to the title of the plaintiff, she had the right to strike it out. Code, sec. 1352 [31 Stat. at L. 1401, chap. 854]. This provision of the Code is but declaratory of the law as it was recognized before the adoption of the negotiable instruments act. See Vanarsdale v. Sax, 47 C. C. A. 31, 107 Fed. 878, 880, and cases cited.

It follows that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. It is so ordered. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think there was no error in the action of the court. Assuming, as contended for the appellants, that the note had been actually indorsed by Benjamin F. Edwards to the savings bank for collection for his account, the bank failed to collect it, and returned it presumably to him. Plaintiff’s title as holder did not pass under that indorsement, but through the delivery to her by Benjamin F. Edwards, who appeared as a witness on her behalf. She took title by delivery under the blank indorsement of the payee, Jerman, the effect of which was to make the note payable to bearer, and pass by delivery. Code, sec. 1338 [31 Stat. at L. 1399, chap. 854]. Whether the further indorsement, if in fact made by Benjamin F. Edwards, was a restrictive one, as defined in sec. 1341 [31 Stat..at L. 1400, chap. 854] is a question of no materiality, as the plaintiff did not claim the title thereunder, and there was no defense to the note as against either Benjamin F. Edwards, the savings bank, or the plaintiff. This indorsement not being necessary to the title of the plaintiff, she had the right to strike it out. Code, sec. 1352 [31 Stat. at L. 1401, chap. 854]. This provision of the Code is but declaratory of the law as it was recognized before the adoption of the negotiable instruments act. See Vanarsdale v. Sax, 47 C. C. A. 31, 107 Fed. 878, 880, and cases cited.

It follows that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. It is so ordered. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 App. D.C. 535, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerman-v-edwards-dc-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack