The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1899-05-20

gent was sustained. although she had two
children present who could read, but were
not asked 10 read the paper. Grithths v.
Kellogg % Wis, $50. Bowers '. Thomas,
INHERENT EQUITIES. Section 1876 IS,
above, seems to allow all de1enSes, whether
collateral or inherent. The Wisconsin stat
ute OF set-oHs allows set-on TO Il note lie
gUtIateu after que. But the mere kuOWl-
edge by the indUrsee before due OF sct-of
VIII not make the note subject thereto.
Patterson Y. Wright, 81 Wis, 2S9. Equities
arising after negotiation cannot affect the
holders rights. Am. q Eng. EnCy., 81.
ll-iEGALITH. viii not defeat an action
upon I note. by A holder III due course,
without notice of the defect. johnson V.
Meeker, l Wis, 3IS. one who puts in cir
cuiauon a note dated on a week day Is
estoPped 10 claim that il was made Sunday.
PURCHASER WITH NOTICE from one
n hrr que . course mrs Is projected. kiSney ';
Wis, 90 But where the payee transfers
paper void in his hands to holder in due
course, and repurchaSes it from him or
sa3,S;,Gquent holder. he Is not protected. Tod
RENEWAL. A renewal note is subject 10
same defenses. ana affords the same pro.
Encv.. 500 First Nat Blk Of Plaukinton,
2 Wis, IL. Unless the defect is thereby
waived or excused; as, by renewing an
usurious note by new note At the lawfh
rate. Gcrlach Y. Bassett. 20 Wis, 659.
Eastman y Porter, II Wis, 50.
section l5i5-& Every holder is deemed
pFlma facie 10 be a holder in due course;
but when II is shown that the title of any
person who has negotiated the Instrument
was defective, the burden IS on the holder
TO prove that he or some person under
whom he claims acquired the title as
Colder in due course. But the last men
| TONED rule does not Apply in favor Of 4
I party who became bound on the instru-
| Hrnt prior 10 the acquisition OF such de
NOTE PRESUMPTION. The holder is
presumed 10 have taken the instrument in
due course, and before maturity. Cook '.
I Ia N.e
Wis, GJ4 Greve V. SchWeitZer, 80 Wis,
524 Wayland University V. Bowman, Sc
BURDEN OF PROOF. This is the Wis
c0nsiu rule Euuer Y. Green, 81 Wis. 159
Where an agent for the payee put note in
circulation IN fraud of his rights, this is no
defense in favor Of the maker, nor does il
change the burden of proof. Kinney V.
krauSe, y Wis, 1913.
After the negotiation Of notes, the payees
agreed with the creditors OF the maker -
take forty per cent. in discharge OF their
Claims ON the note, in case all other Credi
tors should sign the agreement. The com
promise was negotiated prior to the negoti
2ilon OF the note, but not executed until
LIJtf SucA negotiation. Held, that these
facts did not change the burden of proof,
and that holder III due course should re
cover. GutWilIiE Y. Stumes, AZ Wis AS
Where IA note had been pledged as collat-
eral with written assignment indorsed.
ana the note was afterward re-deuyered
temporarily TO the payee for a specific pur-
pose, who sold ii to third person, the AS
sIgumcut remaining unCauctiIed, it was
held that the purchaser had notice and
could not Recover. Pier V. Bulls, As Wis,
42g
The burden is again shifted when the
holder shows that he or some holder under
whom he claims, paid full value; since the
@sher REQUISITES, in good faith, Of purchase.
dence. Am. X Eng. Eucy. 323.
TITLE DEFECTIVE, FRAUD, DTRESS.
ll;iLENA,LlII When these are shown, or
where The paper was fraudulcntly put in
circulation, the burden is on the holder to
show that he, or some one through whom he
claims, Is 4 holder il due course. Fuller V.
Green, tt Wis, l59. Am. x Eng Eucy.,
80. These defects affect the title.