Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0650-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 826
    CLARK v. MIDLAND BANK
    No. 19959.
    Supreme Court
    On motion to certify.
    Dock. July 8, 1926;
    4 Abs. 475.
    147. BILLS AND NOTES — Where the evidence shows a defective title in the payee of a negotiable instrument is the burden ct proof upon the payee’s indorsee, to prove that it is a holder in due course?
   It appears that the note was delivered to the Hunter Crucible Steel Company, under an agreement which the company never complied with. Subsequently the company indorsed the note to the bank to secure a pre-existing debt.

Attorneys — C. S. Bentley for Clark; Baker, Hostetler & Sidlo for Bank; all of Cleveland.

The judgment of the Common Pleas in favor of the Bank was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Clark in the Supreme Court contends:

1. That after a defective title in the Steel Company was shown the burden of proof was upon the bank to show that it was a holder in due course.

2. The court erred in its charge to the jury.