Presumption As To Transfer Of Negotiable Instrument. - Absolute Payment Not Presumed. Continued
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.
Presumption As To Transfer Of Negotiable Instrument. - Absolute Payment Not Presumed. Continued
2 Caldwell v. Hall, 49 Ark. 508; 4 Am. St. Rep. 64; 1 S. W. 62; Merrill v. Kenyon, 48 Conn. 314; 40 Am. Rep. 174; Topeka Capital Co. v. Merriam, 60 Kan. 397; 56 Pac. 757; Bradley v. Harwi, 43 Kan. 314; 23 Pac. 566; Miller v. Mc-Carty, 47 Minn. 321; 28 Am. St. Rep. 375; 50 N. W. 235; Starling v. Wyatt (Miss.), 27 So. 526; Fry v. Patterson, 49 N. J. L. 612; 10 Atl. 390; Merrick v. Boury, 4 O. S. 60; Matteson v. Ellsworth, 33 Wis. 488; 14 Am. Rep. 766.
3 Wilhelm v. Schmidt, 84 111. 183; Kruse v. Lumber Co., 108 la. 352; 79 N. W. 118; Webb v. Bank, 67 Kan. 62; 72 Pac. 520; Gillett v. Knowles, 108 Mich. 602; 66 N. W. 497; Chamberlain Banking House v. Wolsey, 60 Neb. 516; 83 N. W. 729; American, etc., Co. v. Drinkhouse, 59 N. J. L. 462; 36 Atl. 1034; Smith v. Ryan, 66 N. Y. 352; 23 Am. Rep. 60; Teny v. Bobbins, 128 N. C. 140; 83 Am. St. Rep. 663; 38 S. E. 470; Collins v. Busch, 191 Pa. St. 549; 43 Atl. 378; Shepherd v. Busch, 154 Pa. St. 149; 35 Am. St. Rep. 815; 26 Atl. 363; Perry v. Williamson (Tenn.), 56 S. W. 826; Duggan v. Broom Co., 6 Wash. 593; 36 Am. St. Rep. 182; 34 Pac. 157; Willow River Lumber Co. v. Furniture Co., 102 Wis. 636: 78 N. W. 762.
4 Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 532.
5 Shepherd v. Busch, 154 Pa. St. 149; 35 Am. St. Rep. 815; 26 Atl. 363.
6 Baker v. Baker, 2 S. D. 261; 39 Am. St. Rep. 776; 49 N. W. 1064.
7 Terry v. Robbins, 128 N. C. 140; 83 Am. St. Rep. 663; 38 S. E. 470.
8 Coleman v. Lewis, 183 Mass. 485; 97 Am. St. Rep. 450; 67 N. E. 603.
9Segrist v. Crabtree, 131 U. S. 287; Carlin v. Heller, 34 la. 256; Hoeflinger v. Wells, 47 Wis. 628; 3 N. W. 589.
10 Segrist v. Crabtree, 131 U. S. 287; Lyman v. Bank, 12 How. (U. S.) 225.
11 Shriner v. Keller, 25 Pa. St. 61.
12 The Emily Souder, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 666; The Bird of Paradise, 5 Wall. 545; Flannery v. Harley, 117
Ga. 483; 43 S. E. 765; Hodgen v. Latham, 33 111. 344; Holdsworth v. De Belaunzaran, 106 N. Y. 119; 12 N. E. 615; League v. Waring, 85 Pa. St. 244; Estey v. Birnbaum, 9 S. D. 174; 68 N. W. 290.
13 Brown v. Olmstead, 50 Cal. 162; National Life Ins. Co. v. Goble, 51 Neb. 5; 70 N. W. 503.
14 Smith v. Bettger, 68 Ind. 254; 34 Am. Rep. 256; Bangor v. Warren, 34 Me. 324; 56 Am. Dec. 657; Arnold v. Sprague, 34 Vt. 402; Schierl v. Baumel, 75 Wis. 69; 43 N. W. 724.
15 Hall v. Stevens, 116 N. Y. 201; 5L. R. A. 802; 22 N. E. 374.
16 Whitney v. Esson, 99 Mass. 308; 96 Am. Dec. 762; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen, 11 Mich. 501; 83 Am. Dec. 756; Allan v. Eldred, 50 Wis. 132; 6 N. W. 565.
17 Morris v. Bank. 122 Ala. 580; 25 So. 499; Steiner v. Jeffries, 118 Ala. 573; 24 So. 37; Steinhart v. Bank, 94 Cal. 362; 28 Am. St. Rep. 132; 29 Pac. 717; Angus v. Bank, 170 111. 298; 48 N. E. 946; affirming 68 111. App. 425; Burrows v. State, 137 Ind. 474; 45 Am. St. Rep. 210, 37 N. E. 271; People's Savings Bank v. Giffcrd, 108 la. 277; 79 N". W. 63; Carter v. Richardson (Ky.), 60 S. W. 397; Williamson v. Mfg. Co., 169 Mass. 374; 47 N. E. 1020; Baumgardner v. Henry, 131 Mich. 240; 91 N. W. 169; Goodall v. Norton, 88 Minn. 1; 92 N. W. 445; National Bank v. R. R., 44 Minn. 224; 20 Am. St. Rep. 566; 9 L. R. A. 263; 46 N. W. 342. 560; Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Bank. 116 Mo. 558; 38 Am. St. Rep. 615: 22 S. W. 813; National Life Ins. Co. v. Goble, 51 Neb. 5; 70 N. W. 503; Nason v. Fowler, 70 N. H. 291; 47 Atl. 263; Thomas v. Westchester County, 115 N. Y. 47; 4 L. R. A. 477; 21 N. E. 674; Thomson v. Bank, 82 N. Y. 1; Fleig v. Sleet, 43 O. S. 53; 54 Am. Rep. 800; 1 N. E. 24; Springfield v. Green. 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 301.
18Bickford v. Bank, 42 111. 238;
89 Am. Dec. 436; Born v. Bank, 123 Ind. 78; 18 Am. St. Rep. 312; 7 L. R. A. 442; 24 N. E. 173; Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Bank, 51 O. S. 106; 46 Am. St. Rep. 560; 36 N. E. 833; Andrews v. Bank, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 211; 24 Am. Rep. 300.
19 Mordis v. Kennedy, 23 Kan. 408; 33 Am. Rep. 169; Weddigen v. Fabric Co., 100 Mass. 422; Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19; 13 L. R. A. 43: 27 N. E. 763; Holmes v. Briggs, 131 Pa. St. 233; 17 Am. St. Rep. 804; 18 Atl. 928.
20 Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Bank, 116 Mo. 558; 38 Am. St. Rep. 615; 22 S. W. 813.
21 National Bank v. R. R.. 44 Minn. 224; 20 Am. St. Rep. 566: 9 L. R. A. 263; 46 N. W. 342, 560.
22 Metropolitan National Bank v. Jones, 137 111. 634; 31 Am. St. Rep. 403; 12 L. R. A. 492; 27 N. E. 533.
23 Downey v. Hicks, 14 How. (U. S.) 240; Watts v. Gan. 114 Ala. 264; 62 Am. St. Rep. 99: 21 So. 1011; Carroll v. Sweet. 128 N. Y. 19; 13 L. R. A. 43; 27 N. E. 763; Hodgson v. Barrett, 33 O. S. 63; 31 Am. Rep. 527.
24 Board of Education v. Robinson, 81 Minn. 305; 83 Am. St. Rep. 374; 84 N. W. 105. In this case the check was deposited in the bank on which it was drawn, which was then insolvent, but a going concern, and which failed before such deposit was checked out.
25 Goodall v. Norton, 88 Minn. 1; 92 N. W. 445.
26 Smith, etc., Co. v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 772; 97 Am. St. Rep. 217; 45 S. E. 47. (The fact that after the cancelled check had been surrendered to A by Y, Y asked for it, received it from A, and then protested it, does not destroy the effect of payment.)
27Millhiser v. Marr, 128 N. C. 318; 38 S. E. 887.
28 Sayles v. Cox, 95 Tenn. 579; 49 Am. St. Rep. 940; 32 L. R. A. 715; 32 S. W. 626.
29 Holmes v. Briggs. 131 Pa. St. 233; 17 Am. St. Rep. 804; 18 Atl. 928; s. c, sub nomine, Briggs v. Holmes, 118 Pa. St. 283; 4 Am. St. Rep. 597; 12 Atl. 355.
30 Briggs v. Holmes, 118 Pa. St. 283; 4 Am. St. Rep. 597; 12 Atl. 355.
31 Holmes v. Briggs, 131 Pa. St. 233; 17 Am. St. Rep. 804; IS All. 928.
32 Leake v. Brown, 43 111. 372; Duquette v. Richar, 102 Mich. 48:1; 60 N. W. 974; Gallagher v. Ruffing, 118 Wis. 284; 95 N. W. 117.
33 Gallagher v. Ruffing, 118 Wis. 284; 95 N. W. 117.
Continue to:
My Books
