Case ID: la-ann_12/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spofford, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rufus K. Howell v. Andrew E. Crane.
    When one has acquired a negotiable note after its maturity, he will, notwithstanding, be protected as an innocent holder if the immediate party who transferred the note to him took it by endorsement bona fide for value, before it was due.
    Appeal from the District Court of the parish of St. James, Ratliff, Judge of the Seventh District, presiding.
    
      C. A. Johnson, for plaintiff.
    
      Berault & Legendre, for defendant and appellant.
   Spofford, J.

This is a suit by the holder of a negotiable promissory note against the maker.

The defence is, that the maker has been disquieted in his title and possession of the slave for which the note was originally given by him to the payee, and that he is entitled to set up this defence because the plaintiff acquired the note after its maturity.

It is probably true that the plaintiff acquired the note after its maturity ; but there is no other reason for suspecting his good faith. And it is proved that the endorser, from whom he acquired it, took the note from the payee and first endorser long before its maturity, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration.

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff succeeds to the rights of the endorser under whom he holds ; and the equities pleadable, as against the payee, are not open to inquiry in this action.

“ If the immediate party transferring an overdue bill might have sued thereon, as, if he took the bill by endorsement, Iona fide, for value, before it was due, the holder is invested with his rights.” Chitty on Bills, ch. 6, p. 245. See also 3 Kent Com., *p. 92; Story’s notes, §178; Chalmers v. Lanier, 1 Camp. 383.

Judgment affirmed.