Pierce v. Harper

Sixth Circuit

Pierce v. Harper

249 F. 867, 162 C.C.A. 101, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1918

DocketNo. 3090

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 F. 867 (Pierce v. Harper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pierce v. Harper, 249 F. 867, 162 C.C.A. 101, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305 (6th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SESSIONS, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The defense pleaded was that the note was given and obtained without consideration. Hence the burden was upon paintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a valuable consideration for the note. Ginn v. Dolan, 81 Ohio St. 121, 90 N. E. 141, 135 Am. St. Rep. 761, 18 Ann. Cas. 204. Has she sustained that burden ?

[1,2] The note itself, when produced and introduced in evidence, carried with it the presumption that it was given for a valuable consideration. Section 8129, General Code of Ohio. Such consideration may consist either of an advantage or benefit received by the maker, or of a disadvantage or detriment suffered by the payee. An answer to a suit upon a promissory note, which merely avers that no consideration moved to the promisor, is not sufficient, but, to constitute a defense, must also aver that the promisee did not thereby suffer a loss or detriment; and the pleading must be supported by proof. Dalrymple, Adm’r, v. Wyker, Adm'r, 60 Ohio St. 108, 53 N. E. 713. Tested by this rule, the facts which defendant pleaded and offered to prove did not overcome or counterbalance the prima facie case made by plaintiff, and did not constitute a defense to the action. It clearly appears that the conditional or contingent indebtedness of the defendant to the estate of E. R. Hart was partially canceled and discharged by the giving of the note to plaintiff. This in itself constituted, at that time, a valuable cónsideration moving to defendant. It is a fair inference, also, that plaintiff received and accepted the note in lieu of [869]*869cash to which she was entitled from her uncle’s estate. If so, she suffered a detriment or loss, which constituted a valuable consideration for the note. In either case she was a bona fide holder for value.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

SESSIONS, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The defense pleaded was that the note was given and obtained without consideration. Hence the burden was upon paintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a valuable consideration for the note. Ginn v. Dolan, 81 Ohio St. 121, 90 N. E. 141, 135 Am. St. Rep. 761, 18 Ann. Cas. 204. Has she sustained that burden ?

[1,2] The note itself, when produced and introduced in evidence, carried with it the presumption that it was given for a valuable consideration. Section 8129, General Code of Ohio. Such consideration may consist either of an advantage or benefit received by the maker, or of a disadvantage or detriment suffered by the payee. An answer to a suit upon a promissory note, which merely avers that no consideration moved to the promisor, is not sufficient, but, to constitute a defense, must also aver that the promisee did not thereby suffer a loss or detriment; and the pleading must be supported by proof. Dalrymple, Adm’r, v. Wyker, Adm'r, 60 Ohio St. 108, 53 N. E. 713. Tested by this rule, the facts which defendant pleaded and offered to prove did not overcome or counterbalance the prima facie case made by plaintiff, and did not constitute a defense to the action. It clearly appears that the conditional or contingent indebtedness of the defendant to the estate of E. R. Hart was partially canceled and discharged by the giving of the note to plaintiff. This in itself constituted, at that time, a valuable cónsideration moving to defendant. It is a fair inference, also, that plaintiff received and accepted the note in lieu of [869]*869cash to which she was entitled from her uncle’s estate. If so, she suffered a detriment or loss, which constituted a valuable consideration for the note. In either case she was a bona fide holder for value.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F. 867, 162 C.C.A. 101, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-harper-ca6-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack