Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady
Opinion
Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff's holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiff was a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brown, an officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. Even if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in *Page 355
transfer of the note was adverse to interest of plaintiff, and not imputable. The case is ruled by State Savings Bank of Ionia
v. Montgomery,
Plaintiff was entitled to directed verdict for amount stated.
Reversed, with costs, and remanded for judgment accordingly.
McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
249 N.W. 888 (Valley Jitney Jungle Co. v. Hamady) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.