The New York herald., 1877-07-11
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
wAsmSGToy. July 10, 1877.
The following cecison has been rendered In the
United States Supreme Court
NEGOTIABLE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IN Favor or
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. on SUCH PAPER
No. lS6. Thomas Collins, plaintiff In error, vs.
William L.. Gilbert and Henry Gay-Errort to the Circuit
Court o the United States for the Western District OF
Pennsylvania -Transeroes OF Negotiable instrument,
such us bill OF exchange promssory note payable
subsequent to Its date hold the instrument clothed
with tue presumption that It negotiated for value
the usual course Of business at tho time OF
prior parties to the instrument. instruments OF
tho kind commercial paper In Tho sirctest
instruments, M we'll ON account OF their negotiable
quality as their universal convenience IN mercantile
affairs. They may Le transferred by indorsemert, or
when Endorsed IN blank or mado payable to bearer
they are transferable by mere delivery. Goodman
VS. Harvey. Ad. L. ELL, $40; Goodman vs. sinonds.
VS.. DowoIi, 10 Gray, 346; Mayer Badger 81 N Y,
24yl Possession 0t such an instrument, payable to
bearer or indorsed IN blank, is prima acc evidence
thar the holder Is tho proper owner and
lawful possessor OF the same, and nothing
short of fraud not even gross negligence, II unat
tended with mala ndes Is sufficient to overcome the
occt OF that evidence or to invaldnte the tie sf tho
hoider supported by that presumption, STORY on
no; Chiity Bills, 18th Cd, 257 Mills vs. Barber,
] Noes. and Wells, 425; Murray va Gardner. Wall,
suit the name Of tho ransierec against the maker,
and Is clear that he has nothing TO do In tho opening
OF his case except to provo the signatures to the n
strument and introduce tho samo IN evidence. tho
instrument goes to the jury clothed with tho presump
ton that the plaintiff became tho holder OF the
for value at Its date in tho usual course Of business,
without notice OF thing to impcach his titlc aus
vs.. Leighton Law Rep, Exch., 81 pcslse vs. Prout,
Gray, 503l Way VS. Richardson, Id. 4l3l
Clothed. tho instrument Is, with those
presumptons, tho plaintiff is not bound to
ysao ay ,s evidence .,. 70 a1w &
clearly proved that the consideration OF tho instru
ment was Illegal or that u was fraudulent IN its incep
1t came TO the possession OF the holder.
(Uthcr Rich. 10 Ad. and ELL, 7s4; Bailey vs. Bid
well Is Noes =, and Wells, r.; Arbouin w. Anderson,
=. g., 20; Fitch VIZ. Jones, ELL and b., 23S; Smith
vs. Brane 10 Ad and ELL, n. 81 25l; Hall vs. Feather
stone. Hurls and Norman. 1885, Sufficient appears
TO show that tho drawers ot tho DRAFT described In the
declaraon were subcontrncors to grade seven miles
OF railroad roicrred 10 IN the affidavit Of the defence
and that they wore to be paid monthly for the work
done, subject certain deduction TO be retained
security Tor the completion Of thor contract. Moneys
received from the monthly payments being insufficient
tor the purpose they unable to complete their un-
dortaking without an advance from the principal con
tractor. What they wanted was advance OF 1000
and It appears that the contractor willing to MAKE
II ifthcy would give him the acceptance oil the defend.
ant In the security that they would
perform their contract. Pursuant 10 that arrange
meat they drew their drnt upon tho defend
ant In that amount, payable TO tho order
O. 'her senior ptnss r, aad the M recora Shows
aud was duly indorscd by tho payee. Beyond doubt
tho DRAFT was duly executed and delivered to the con-
tractor as security for the performance Of the contract
OF the OF the instrument BY its terms 1t
payable ninety days from date, and IL must be
assumed the absence Of proof TO the contrary that
the plaintiff became the holder OF the same before ma.
turity Payment beng refused, plantn instituted the
present suit to recover tho amount the acceptance
was pleaded ana the judgment was Tor the plaintl.
Under the foregoing conclusions OF law the judgment
Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the optpion.