Vinton v. Crowe
WM. M. VINTON v. JOHN CROWE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Mr. J. Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
The defense relied on will not avail.
If the plaintiff obtained the note after its maturity, he took it subject to all subsisting equities between the maker and the payee, but not subject to such as subsisted between the maker and any intermediate holder. Such a doctrine has never been countenanced by any authority whatever, and would make a rule both dangerous ■ and absurd.
Judgment affirmed, with fifteen per cent, damages.
Cited by
- Bank of Sonoma County v. Gove · 1883-05-08
- J. A. Hayward & Co. v. Stearns No. 2,094 · 1870-07-01
- Sherman v. Rollberg · 1858-07-01