Shaffer v. Peavey

152 N.W. 829, 161 Wis. 149, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 183
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 N.W. 829 (Shaffer v. Peavey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shaffer v. Peavey, 152 N.W. 829, 161 Wis. 149, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 183 (Wis. 1915).

Opinion

Winslow, C. J.

Tbe verdict was rightly directed. Tbe only question in tbe case was whether tbe plaintiff was a bolder in due course. If be was, tbe agreement of novation does not affect bis rights to recover. Tbat be was such bolder there can be no doubt. Tbe railway company received tbe notes in tbe regular course of business before due as collateral security upon an existing indebtedness and in consideration Thereof agreed to give further time to pay such debt. This made tbe company a bona fide bolder in due course unless it bad notice tbat there was a defect in tbe title. Bowman v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209. There is no evidence tending to. show tbat tbe company bad actual notice of tbe novation agreement or of any facts which would be sufficient to constitute constructive notice. It is equally clear tbat tbe plaintiff is a bolder in due course.

There are no other questions to be considered.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Walmer v. First Acceptance Co.
212 N.W. 638 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1927)
Gulbranson-Dickinson Co. v. Hopkins
175 N.W. 93 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 N.W. 829, 161 Wis. 149, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaffer-v-peavey-wis-1915.