Sec. 769. Recital Of Consideration Unnecessary
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 769. Recital Of Consideration Unnecessary
It is customary for a negotiable instrument containing a recital of a consideration, as by the use of the words "for value received." This, however, is not essential.1 Thus a check is
14 Weidler v. Kauffman, 14 Ohio 45.5.
15 Anriiston Loan and Trust Co. v. Stickney, 108 Ala. 146; 31 L. R. A. 234; 19 So. 63.
16 Miller v. Poage, 56 la. 96; 41 Am. Rep. 82; 8 N. W. 799. Contra, Capron v. Capron, 44 Vt. 410.
17 Glidden v. Henry, 104 Ind. 278; 54 Am. Rep. 316; 1 N. E. 369; Matchett v. Machine Works, 29 Ind. App. 207; 94 Am. St. Rep. 272; 64 N. E. 229; Rosenthal v. Rambo. 28 Ind. App. 265; 62 X. E. 637; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Fraze, 9 Ind. App. 161; 53 Am. St. Rep. 341; 36 N. E. 378; Oyler v. McMurray, 7 Ind. App. 645; 34 N. E. 1004; Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 la. 348; 44 Am. Rep. 685; 13 N. W. 312; Second National Bank of Richmond v. Wheeler, 75 Mich. 546; 42 N. W.
963; Citizens' National Bank v. Piollet, 126 Pa. St. 194; 12 Am. St. Rep. 860; 4 L. R. A. 190; 17 Atl. 603. Contra, Witty v. Ins. Co., 123 Ind. 411; 18 Am. St. Rep. 327; 8 L. R. A. 365; 24 N. E. 141.
18 McClelland v. R. R„ 110 N. Y. 469; 6 Am. St. Rep. 397; 1 L. R. A. 299; 18 N. E. 237.
1 Graves v. Mining Co., 81 Cal. 303; 22 Pac. 665; Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92; 24 Am. St. Rep. 424; 12 L. R. A. 845; 27 N. E. 835; Smurr v. Forman, 1 Ohio 272. Contra, under Mississippi statute, where a contract containing restrictions on assignability was held negotiable. Greenwood Lodge v. Prie batsch, - Miss. -; 35 So. 427.
2 Murphy v. Improvement Co.. 97 Fed. 723.
1 Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7; negotiable without the words "value received," though by statute such words are necessary in a note.2 So a recital of any valuable consideration is sufficient.3 On the other hand, the recital of a consideration does not operate, as notice to the indorsee of failure of consideration, or other defense arising thereon which might operate as a defense against the payee.4 A provision in a note that title to the property for which it is given shall revest in the vendor if the note is not paid at maturity destroys its negotiability,5 while a provision that title shall not pass until the note is paid does not.6
Continue to:
My Books
