DOCSLIB.ORG

The Negotiable Instruments Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Negotiable Instruments Law TITLE I. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS IN GENERAL. Article 1. Form and Interpretation. Sec. Form of negotiable instru 16. Blanks; when may be filled. ment. 17. Incomplete instrument not de Certainty as to Sum; what livered. constitutes. 18. Delivery; When effectual; When promise is uncondi when presumed. tional. 19. Construction where instru Determinable future time; ment is ambiguous. what constitutes. 20. Liability of person signing in Additional provisions not af trade or assumed name. fecting negotiability. 21. Signature by agent; author Omissions; seal; particular ity, how shown. money. 22. Liability of person signing as When payable on demand. agent, etc. 10. When payable to order. 23. Signature by procuration; op 11. When payable to bearer. eration of. 12. Terms; when sufficient. 24. Indorsement by infant or cor 13. Date; presumption as to. poration; effect of. 14. Ante-dated and post-dated. 25. Forged signature; effect of. 15. Date; when may be inserted. Sec. 3. Form of negotiable instrument.—An instru ment, to be negotiable, must conform to the following requirements:" First, It must be in writing” and signed" by the maker or drawer; Second, It must contain an unconditional promise or order * to pay a certain" sum in money;" Third, It must be payable on demand" or at a fixed or determinable future time; * Fourth, It must be payable to order or to bearer;" and 27 28 THE NEGOTLABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. Fifth, Where the instrument is addressed to a drawee, he must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.” 1—These are the essential re 6 Hill 322; Brown v. McHugh, 35 quirements of the Law Merchant. Mich. 50. Daniel Neg. Inst. 5th ed., Sec. 27, A person though able to Write 28, 1566. his name may nevertheless sign by legal 2—The writing may be in pen his mark. The effect is party cil. Geary v. Physic, 5 B. & C. 234 the same as if the had writ Johnson, (1826); Brown v. Butchers Bank, ten his name. Bliss v. 162 Mass. 323. 6 Hill (N. Y.) 443. 4—The statute is but the 3—An instrument in the form ex pression of the uniform rule of of a bill of exchange Without date that, and without drawer's name but the law merchant to consti tute a negotiable instrument, the with acceptance by the drawee is promise or order must be absolute neither a bill of exchange nor a and Without any contingency that promissory note. It is only an in would embarrass the circulation choate instrument. The bill or of the instrument. White V. Cush note must be signed. M’Call v. ing, 88 Me. 339. In this case suit Taylor, 34 L. J. R. C. P. 365; was brought by the indorsee of an Reg. v. Harper, L. R. 7 Q. B. DiV. order in the following form: 78 and cases cited. $120. Piscataquis Savings Bank. Signing by stamp rubber is Val Pay James Lawler, or order, id. Cadillac State Bank V. Cadil one hundred and twenty dollars Heading Co., 129 lac Stave & and charge to my account On book Mich. 15. No. J. N. Cushing. A person may become bound by Witness. any mark or designation he thinks The bank book of the depositor proper to adopt, provided it be must accompany this order. used as a Substitute for his name Held: That without the Words and he intend to bind himself. If italicized the order is payable ab the name is not signed the holder solutely and there is no apparent is required to show that what was uncertainty affecting its negotia Written was intended to answer bility; with them, the order is the purpose of a signature. payable only upon contingency, or Brown v. Butchers Bank, supra. condition, and that is upon pro In this case the indorsement WaS duction of the drawer's bank book. made with lead pencil and in fig * * * The drawer has it in his ures thus: “1, 2, 8;” no name be power to defeat its payment by ing written. In such a case evi withholding the bank book. It dence that the party could write was the necessity of certainty and is immaterial. See Rogers v. Coit, precision in mercantile affairs and NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS IN GENERAL. 29 the inconveniences which would Atl. 428 (a case under the Stat result if commercial paper was ute). incumbered With conditions and An instrument in the following contingencies, that led to the es form is negotiable: rule, tablishment of an inflexible “Mr. William Tebo will please that to be negotiable, paper must pay to R. J. Torpey or order payable absolutely be and without two hundred and fifty dollars and 2ny conditions or contingencies charge to my account. Due Oct. 1. to embarraSS its circulation. “John Ryan.” To same effect, Iron City Bank v. McCord, 139 Penn. St. 52. Torpey v. Tebo, 184 Mass. 307 The order or promise must be to (a case under the statute). pay out of the general account 5–It is the rule of the law of the drawer or maker. merchant that the Sum Ordered Or An order or promise to pay out promised to be paid must be cer of a particular fund is not uncon tain, else the instrument will not ditional. This is the well Settled be negotiable. Daniel’s Neg. Inst., rule of the law merchant. Wor 5th ed., Sec. 53. den V. Dodge, 4 Denio 159. The maxim “id certum est quod An instrument in form of a Certum reddi potest” applies; SO promissory note but made ex if the amount can be ascertained pressly subject to the conditions . from the instrument itself, the of a mortgage not payable abso rule as to certainty is Satisfied. lutely but only on certain contin Smith V. Clopton, 4 Tex. 109; gencies is not negotiable. Good Parsons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. 440. enow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505; In the former case the promise Humphrey v. Beckwith, 48 Mich. was to pay $1.50 per acre for 151; Brooke v. Struthers, 110 each and every acre of land lying Mich. 569; Dilley v. VanWie, 6 within certain described bound Wis. 206. See also Lamb V. aries. Subsequently there Was Story, 45 Mich. 488; Chandler v. added to the instrument the fol Carey, 64 Mich. 237; Wright v. lowing, which was signed by the Traver, 73 Mich. 493. See sec. 5. maker: “Since the Within Was A bill reading: Pay Julius C. Written, the land has been Sur Cable or order three hundred dol veyed and found to be sixty five lars, or what may be due on my acres, which will make the with deposit book number E. in, call for $97.50.” The note was (Signed) John Edwards made April 15, 1848; the addi is not negotiable, because payable tion November 10, 1848. It was out of a particular fund and the held that the note was a nego amount to be paid being made tiable instrument from the date to depend upon the adequacy of a of the addition, to-wit: Nov. 10, specified fund. Nat. Savings 1848. In the latter case the action Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568; 48 was on bonds reciting that the 30 THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Plymell, 23 Kan. 402; Smith v. Railway Company is indebted to Crane, 33 Minn. 144. John Ray or bearer, for value A promise to pay a named sum received, in the sum of 225 l “with such additional premium sterling, or $1,000, lawful money as may arise or become due on of the United States of America, policy No. 50” renders the note to-wit: 225 l sterling, if the prin non-negotiable. Dodge V. Emer cipal and interest are payable in son, 34 Me, 96; Marrett V. Equi London, and $1,000 lawful money table Ins. Co. 54 Me. 537; Pal Of the United States of America, mer V. Ward, 6 Gray (Mass.) if the principal and interest are 340. payable in New York or New A promise to pay a named sum Orleans, etc. Each bond further “or what might be due after de on its face declares that “the pres ducting all advances and ex ident of Said Company is author penses,” renders the note non-ne ized to fix, by his indorsement, gotiable. Cushman V. Haynes, 20 the place of payment, of the prin Pick. 132. See Sec. 4. cipal and interest in conformity 6–The rule of the law mer with the terms of this obligation. chant is thus stated by Mr. Dan On the back of the bonds is en iel: “It is essential to the nego dorsed a printed blank in the tiability of a bill or note that it following words, to-wit: “I here purport to be only for the pay by agree that the within bond ment of money.” Daniel's Neg. and the interest coupons thereto Ins., 5th ed., sec. 59. attached shall be payable in Money is a generic and compre .” The uncertainty of the hensive term. It is not a syno amount payable, in the absence of nym of coin. It includes coin the required indorsement is of but is not confined to it. It in itself a defect which deprives cludes whatever is lawfully and these instruments of the charac actually current in buying and ter of negotiability. As they selling, of the value and as the stand they amount to a promise equivalent of coin. By universal to pay so many pounds, or So consent under the Sanction of all many dollars, without Saying courts everywhere, or almost which.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER NEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Introduction: • Businessmen Have a Common Practice of Making Use of Certain Documents
    CHAPTER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 CHAPTER AT A GLANCE Introduction: • Businessmen have a common practice of making use of certain documents for making payments. • Such documents are known as negotiable instruments. • The law relating to negotiable instruments is contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. • The Act recognizes only three types of instruments: (a) Promissory notes (b) Bills of exchange (c) Cheques • Accepting payments through them is risky as it involves deferred payments. • It is the law of commercial world. • It was enacted to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce. • Its main purpose was to present an orderly and authoritative statement of the leading rules of law relating to negotiable instrument. • It refers to an act to define and amend the law relating to promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. • Act applies to whole of India and all persons resident in India. • Its provisions are not applicable to Hundis and other native instruments. Negotiable Instruments: • It is an “instrument which is transferable, by delivery, like cash, and is also capable of being sued upon by the person holding for time being. • As per the Section 13(1) of the Act, “A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bills of exchange, or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.” • Conditions of Negotiability: (i) It should be freely transferable. (ii) Defective title of transferor does affects the title of person taking it for value and in good faith. (iii) Transferee can sue upon the instrument in his own name. • Negotiability Involves two Elements: (i) Transferability free from equities. (ii) Transferability by delivery or endorsement.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiable Instruments
    St. John's Law Review Volume 26 Number 1 Volume 26, December 1951, Number Article 3 1 Negotiable Instruments Edward D. Re Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS EDWARD D. RE - I. INTRODUCTION T HE uniformity envisioned by the draftsmen of the original Negotiable Instruments Law over half a century ago, has, to a large extent, vanished from the American legal scene. Indeed, its passing began even before it had reached ma- turity, for the Law, itself, was never adopted in identical form in all the states. Furthermore, such of its substance, as was uniformly accepted, has been subject to more than fifty years of amendment, modification, and divergent inter- pretation in the various jurisdictions.1 In addition, it has become increasingly obvious that the statute, as originally drafted and presently in force, contains certain basic defects which render substantial revision both necessary and desirable. 2 The proposed Commercial Code, in the article on "Commercial Paper," is designed to achieve t Professor of Law, St. John's University School of Law. 'An example is the construction placed on Section 62 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. See Wells Fargo Bank and Union Trust Co. v. Bank of Italy, 214 Cal.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGIN of the NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE Jacob J
    1956] THE ORIGIN OF THE NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE Jacob J. Rabinowitzt The origin of the negotiable promissory note has been widely dis- cussed by legal historians. Brunner, who has devoted a number of articles to the subject,1 maintains that the principles underlying the negotiable promissory note are traceable to Germanic law and that the main elements of the negotiability clause are discernible in Lombard documents of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries.' Under the Ger- manic law of procedure, Brunner asserts, the emphasis was upon the validity or invalidity of the defendant's defense and not upon the validity of the plaintiff's claim. In other words, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show why he was not liable to the plaintiff. There- fore, he says, when the promise ran to the person in whose hands the instrument would appear, the defendant had no valid defense against the holder of the instrument who was not required to show how the defendant became liable to him.3 It seems, however, that Brunner's so-called "principle of the Ger- manic law of procedure," which supposedly lays stress upon the validity of the defendant's defense-a most peculiar principle indeed-is but a product of his own imagination. He cites no evidence whatsoever for this principle, except the facts which he seeks to explain by it. Further- more, Brunner would apparently have us believe that the spirit of the Germanic law of procedure, having asserted itself through the Lom- t Professor of Law, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Member of the New York Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
    Subject: Principles of Insurance and Banking Course Code: FM-306 Author: Dr. S.S. Kundu Lesson: 1 Vetter: Dr. B.S. Bodla NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 STRUCTURE 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Meaning of Negotiable Instruments 1.3 Characteristics of a negotiable instrument 1.4 Presumptions as to negotiable instrument 1.5 Types of negotiable Instrument 1.5.1 Promissory notes 1.5.2 Bill of exchange 1.5.3 Cheques 1.5.4 Hundis 1.6 Parties to negotiable instruments 1.6.1 Parties to Bill of Exchange 1.6.2 Parties to a Promissory Note 1.6.3 Parties to a Cheque 1.7 Negotiation 1.7.1 Modes of negotiation 1.8 Assignment 1.8.1 Negotiation and Assignment Distinguished 1.8.2 Importance of delivery in negotiation 1.9 Endorsement 1.10 Instruments without Consideration 1.11 Holder in Due Course 1.12 Dishonour of a Negotiable instrument 1.13 Noting and protesting 1.14 Summary 1.15 Keywords 1.16 Self Assessment Questions 1.17 References/Suggested readings 1.0 OBJECTIVES After reading this lesson, you should be able to- • Understand meaning, essential characteristics and types of negotiable instruments; • Describe the meaning and marketing of cheques, crossing of cheques and cancellation of crossing of a cheque; • Explain capacity and liability parties to a negotiable instruments; and • Understand various provisions of negotiable instrument Act, 1881 regarding negotiation, assignment, endorsement, acceptance, etc. of negotiable instruments. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted, in India, in 1881. Prior to its enactment, the provision of the English Negotiable Instrument Act were applicable in India, and the present Act is also based on the English Act with certain modifications.
    [Show full text]
  • UCC Article 3 – Commercial Paper
    QUESTION 1 After a successful negotiation with counsel for an insurance company regarding a pending lawsuit, the insurer issued a check for $30,000 drawn on First Federal Bank. The check was made payable to Paula Plaintiff and Larry Lawyer. Lawyer was Plaintiff’s attorney in the suit. The insurer mailed the check to Lawyer, and when Lawyer received the check, he indorsed his name on the back of the check and also signed Plaintiff’s name. Lawyer then deposited the check in his lawyer’s trust account at Second State Bank. Second State Bank presented the check to First Federal Bank and received payment. The $30,000 was then credited to Lawyer’s trust account. A few days later, Lawyer withdrew all the funds from the account. Under a valid contingency fee agreement, Lawyer was entitled to one-third of any amount collected in the lawsuit. Lawyer has never remitted any portion of the settlement proceeds to Plaintiff. Second State Bank did not have any reason to suspect Lawyer’s withdrawal of funds from the trust account was improper. QUESTION: Discuss whether Plaintiff can recover any of the $30,000 from Second State Bank. Do not discuss any potential actions that Plaintiff might be able to bring against Lawyer. DISCUSSION FOR QUESTION 1 The check was a negotiable instrument. U.C.C. 3-103 and 104. A negotiable instrument is one that is an: (a) unconditional (b) promise or order (c) to pay a fixed amount of money. In order to be negotiable, the instrument must be payable to order or bearer.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiable Instruments
    16 Negotiable Instruments Overview As commerce and trade developed, people moved beyond the reliance on barter to the use of money. Gradu- ally, there was a need to use substitutes for money, such as commercial paper. Commercial paper is a contract for the payment of money. It can serve as a substitute for money payable immediately, such as a check, or it can be used as a means of extending credit. Commercial paper, consisting of notes and drafts, reflects the needs of mer- chants, traders and importers. These groups were responsible for the development of the negotiable instrument and the eventual creation of a set of rules for settling disputes in the courts they established for that purpose. These instrument’s rules became known as the law of negotiable instruments. Gradually, the rules were codified and a uniform negotiable instruments act was passed by every state legisla- ture. When the Uniform Commercial Code was drafted, Article 3 contained the statutory law that governs commer- cial paper. This Article (as enacted in different states) was in part superseded in 1987 when the U.S. Congress passed the Expedited Funds Availability Act, implemented by Availability Act Regulation CC of the Federal Reserve Board, which effectively superseded prior state laws. Article 3 of the UCC was then rewritten to comply with appli- cable federal laws and regulations and is now the principal source of law governing negotiable instruments. THINK Q. In your company’s line of business, what are the most frequently used negotiable ABOUT instruments and why? THIS Q. How can endorsements or notes change the negotiability of an instrument? Chapter Outline DISCIPLINARY CORE IDEAS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiable Instrument
    Negotiable Instrument A negotiable instrument is a document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand, or at a set time with the payer named on the negotiable instrument. More specifically, it is a document contemplated by a contract, which warrants the payment of money without condition which may be paid on demand or at a future date. Examples of negotiable instruments include promissory notes, bills of exchange, banknotes and cheques. Because money is promised to be paid, the instrument itself can be used by the holder in due course as a store of value. The instrument may be transferred to a third party; it is the holder of the instrument who will ultimately get paid by the payer on the instrument. Transfers can happen at less than the face value of the instrument and this is known as discounting, this may happen for example if there is doubt about the payer's ability to pay. Due to the nature of the negotiable instrument as store of value, most countries passed laws specifically related to negotiable instruments. History Common prototypes of bills of exchanges and promissory notes originated in China. Here, in the 8th century during the reign of the Tang Dynasty they used special instruments called feitsyan for the safe transfer of money over long distances.[1] Later such document for money transfer used by Arab merchants, who had used the prototypes of bills of exchange – suftadja and hawala in 10–13th centuries, then such prototypes had been used by Italian merchants in the 12th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Cases: Bills and Notes. Contract Upon a Negotiable
    RECENT CASES based their results upon business custom and usage in accordance with the spirit of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Plover Savings Bank v. Moodie, 135 Ia. 685, iio N.W. 29 (1907); Sublette Exchange v. Fitzgerald, 168 Ill. App. 240 (1912); Gordon v. Levine, I%9 Mass. 418, 8o N.E. 505 (1907). The last case cited, a leading case on the subject, estab- lished the rule that deposit for collection within one day after receipt and transmission for collection through the usual course adopted by that bank should be regarded as due diligence. The rule of the present case, though not required for the decision, seems to restrict unnecessarily the more liberal view of the Gordon case. WiLIAz L. FIAcKs Bills and Notes-Contract upon a Negotiable Instrument-M'egotiable Instru- ments Law § i6-[Massachusetts].-Defendant was made the payee of a note, secured by a mortgage, in order to defraud the creditors of the actual owner of the note. Defendant then assigned the note and mortgage to the actual owner by a sepa- rate instrument under seal without consideration or delivery of the note or mortgage. The assignment was not in fraud of the defendant's creditors, nor were debts created in reliance on the apparent ownership of the note. The negotiability of the note did not dearly appear. Suit was brought to reach the note in payment of certain debts of defendant. Held, the plaintiff could not recover as the assignment was valid and irrev- ocable. O'Gasapianv. Danielson, 187 N.E. 107 (Mass. 1933). This decision represents the prevailing view as to the assignment of non-negotiable instruments in the jurisdictions where the seal is effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Promissory Note
    Promissory Note A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily salable, it is called a negotiable instrument.[1] Referred to as a note payable in accounting (as distinguished from accounts payable), or commonly as just a "note", it is internationally defined by the Convention providing a uniform law for bills of exchange and promissory notes, although regional variations exist. Bank note is frequently referred to as a promissory note: a promissory note made by a bank and payable to bearer on demand. Mortgage notes are another prominent example. Overview The terms of a note usually include the principal amount, the interest rate if any, the parties, the date, the terms of repayment (which could include interest) and the maturity date. Sometimes, provisions are included concerning the payee's rights in the event of a default, which may include foreclosure of the maker's assets. Demand promissory notes are notes that do not carry a specific maturity date, but are due on demand of the lender. Usually the lender will only give the borrower a few days' notice before the payment is due. For loans between individuals, writing and signing a promissory note are often instrumental for tax and record keeping. A promissory note alone is typically unsecured,[2] but these may be used in combination with security agreements such as mortgage, in which case they are called mortgage notes.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarities in American and European Negotiable Instruments Law
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 16 Number 1 The Common Law and the Civil Law: Some Encounter, Influences and Article 17 Comparisons—Essays in Honor and Memory of Arthur Lenhoff (1885-1965) 10-1-1966 Similarities in American and European Negotiable Instruments Law Marshall L. Cohen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Commercial Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Marshall L. Cohen, Similarities in American and European Negotiable Instruments Law, 16 Buff. L. Rev. 276 (1966). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol16/iss1/17 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS SIMILARITIES IN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW I. INTRODUCTION In order to carry out numerous and often complicated commercial trans- actions, merchants throughout the world have sought simplified payment and credit devices. Such businessmen refrain from using "currency" as a means of payment because it is bulky and there is the risk of theft or loss in transporta- tion. Negotiable instruments such as promissory notes, checks and drafts serve as convenient and safe substitutes for currency, and are used to facilitate the transfer of funds in international commercial transactions.1 Although each country has its own negotiable instruments law, these existing laws fall into two main groups: American law, as an outgrowth of the English common law, constitutes one of those groups; the other group comprises the law of those countries (mostly European) which have adopted the Geneva Convention Uniform Law for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes of 1930.2 In some aspects of negotiable instruments law, the two groups are substantially similar; in other areas they differ.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems with the 1990 Revision of Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Article 2 1993 Problems With the 1990 Revision of Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code D. Fenton Adams Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation D. Fenton Adams, Problems With the 1990 Revision of Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 15 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 665 (1993). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROBLEMS WITH THE 1990 REVISION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 4 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE D. Fenton Adams* In 1990 the sponsors of the Uniform Commercial Code' approved a completely rewritten Article 32 and a substantially amended Article 4,3 along with some conforming amendments to Article 1. The officially stated purposes of the revisions were "to accommodate ... changing [business] practices and modern technologies, the needs of a rapidly expanding national and international economy, the requirement for more rapid funds availability, and the need for more clarity and certainty."' 4 Other motivations were apparently at work as well: a desire to eliminate any suggestion of gender bias in the statutory language5 and indulgence of the revisers' stylistic * Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery of Stolen Money Or Negotiable Instrument from Holder in Due Course: Is There an Indiana Rule?
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 5 Issue 3 Article 2 12-1929 Recovery of Stolen Money or Negotiable Instrument from Holder in Due Course: Is There an Indiana Rule? C. Severin Buschmann Jones, Hammond, & Buschmann Leo M. Gardner Jones, Hammond, & Buschmann Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Commercial Law Commons Recommended Citation Buschmann, C. Severin and Gardner, Leo M. (1929) "Recovery of Stolen Money or Negotiable Instrument from Holder in Due Course: Is There an Indiana Rule?," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 5 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol5/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECOVERY OF STOLEN MONEY OR NEGOTI- ABLE INSTRUMENT FROM HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. IS THERE AN INDIANA RULE? C. SEVERIN BUSCHMANN AND LEO l. GARDNER* It has long been considered necessary for practical business transactions that one who receives money in due course of busi- ness shall not be put on inquiry as to the title of the one paying the same. The reason frequently assigned is that money bears no earmarks, and therefore cannot be traced. But this argument is not tenable, for in many states we find that even though the money can be traced directly into the payee's hand, still no re- covery may be had even though the money has been stolen, unless the person receiving the money took the same in bad faith.
    [Show full text]