Town of Mize v. McIntosh

Mississippi Supreme Court

Town of Mize v. McIntosh

191 So. 489, 186 Miss. 467, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 262

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1939

DocketNo. 33710.

StatusPublished

This text of 191 So. 489 (Town of Mize v. McIntosh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of Mize v. McIntosh, 191 So. 489, 186 Miss. 467, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 262 (Mich. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant on several bonds, payable to bearer issued by the appellant. By several special pleas which the court below held to be insufficient, the appellant alleged that the title to the bonds was not in the appellee but in another. These pleas contain no allegation of mala tides on the part of the appellee, or that the appellant had a defense to the bonds against the one alleged to be the owner thereof, which could not be set up against the appellee. This being true, the court below committed no error in holding the special pleas presented no defense to the action.

Under Section 2707 of the Code of 1930, the holder of an instrument payable to bearer may sue thereon in his own name, and “It is not a good plea to allege that the note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff. It is enough that the plaintiff’s title is good as against the defendant.” 8 Am. Jur. 579, and authorities there cited. What would be the effect of an allegation of mala tides on the part of the plaintiff is not before ns.

Affirmed.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant on several bonds, payable to bearer issued by the appellant. By several special pleas which the court below held to be insufficient, the appellant alleged that the title to the bonds was not in the appellee but in another. These pleas contain no allegation of mala tides on the part of the appellee, or that the appellant had a defense to the bonds against the one alleged to be the owner thereof, which could not be set up against the appellee. This being true, the court below committed no error in holding the special pleas presented no defense to the action.

Under Section 2707 of the Code of 1930, the holder of an instrument payable to bearer may sue thereon in his own name, and “It is not a good plea to allege that the note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff. It is enough that the plaintiff’s title is good as against the defendant.” 8 Am. Jur. 579, and authorities there cited. What would be the effect of an allegation of mala tides on the part of the plaintiff is not before ns.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 So. 489, 186 Miss. 467, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-mize-v-mcintosh-miss-1939.