Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-10
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRcINiAN- PILOT.
Notes OF Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of Interest to
Our People.
PAYNE V. ZELL.


supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
June II, 1900.
a DEPOSITION, IN A SUIT WHERE
a NONRESIDENT OF rAI
STATE Is a PARTY. CANNOT BE
READ UNLESS THE NOTICE
SERVED ON HIS RESIDENT AT
TORNEY GIVES THE TIME RE-
CURED BY CODE SECTION 1858.
AN ANTECEDENT DEBT CONSTR
TUTES VALUE FOR A NEGOTIA-
Bile NOTE, AND WHERE THE
HOLDER HAS A LIEN ON 1T HE
Is A HOLDER FOR VALUE.
The HOLDER OF SUCH NOTE WHO
GETS 1T BEFORE MATURITY AND
BEFORE ANY COMPLAINT Ry
THE MAKER TO THE PAYEE OF
a FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
is A HOLDER WITHOUT NOTICE
OF SUCH FAILURE.
The court says;
Nor did the court err in rejecting tho
deposition of the defendant upon tbe
ground of the insufficiency of the no
ice TO take it. The PLAINTIFF resides in
me CITY OF Baltimore. and his coun-
sci In the city of Richmond, where tho
SUIT was brought. The statute. which
authorizes the service upon the coun-
sci or n party who is q nonresident or
inc state OF n notice to take a deposit
tion' prescribes that the time between
the service Of notice and taking tho
deposition shall b: sufficient for con-
EcyinS by ordinary course of mail a
letter from the place of service TO In.
place OF residence of the rarty. and n
reply from that place back to the nlace
OF service. and then for the counsel 10
attend at the place of taking the demo
Sltlon' Code. section 1858.
me notice was served on counsel In
the city of Richmond. at S45 D. M. on
May 2ith. to take the deposition at
the hours OF a. IN. and 6 D. m. II
was not practicable within the time in
tervening between the service of the
notice and the date appointed for taxi
ing the deposition for counsel to COM
municate by letter with the plaintiff
and receive reply. and then attend
at the place of taking the deposition.
The service of the notice was not with
IN n reasonable time, and was clearly
insufficient.
able note made by the defenIint and
transferred by the payee to the plain
tiii. Upon the trial, the plaintiff intro
duced no evidence except the note.
which. under the pleadings. was ali
that was necessary to make out his
case.
The evidence OF the defendant proved
that the payee was indebted to the
plaintiff in the sum OF sl,575 on ac-
count of the purchase OF stock Of the
Country Club of Baltimore County, and
before the maturity OF the note sued
on endorsed and delivered il to the
plaintiff in part payment of the said
Indebtedness. Whether the plaintiff
accepted the note as payment on ac-
count of or as security for the said in
debtedness is not altogether clear from
the evidence. but whether the one or
the other is immaterial as in either
case he is a holder for value.
The entire transaction has taken
place since the passage by the Legis-
lature OF the statute to revise, arrange.
ana consolidate into one act the laws
relating to negotiable instruments. and
although ii may not have been pre-
viously settled in this State by decision
whether or not n pre-existing debt con-
Stituted value for the transfer of ncgo-
table paper. that question has now
been settled by the said statute. Acts
1925. PIP. SOS. 91s. Section p of that
Act declares that "an antecedent or
pre-existing debt constitutes value,
nd-is-dcemed such whether the in
strument is payable on demand
a future time"
Section q declares that where the
holder has a lien on the instrument,
arising either from contract or by i'm
Piitdtioll VI INV, ne Is QeeIllcQ n nOlUer
for value to the extent OF his lien"
so that any person, to whom a negoti-
able security has been pledged as col
lateral. would be holder for value to
the extent of the amount due to him.
The plaintiff therefore became
holder of the note for value before 1t
maturcd
1t is equally clear from the evidence
that he is also n holder without notice
of the failure of the consideration for
which the note was executed or of any
other inlirmty attaching to 1t. 1t was
endorsed by the payee and delivered by
him to the plaintiff five days before
its maturity and two days even be-
fore the date of the letter of the de-
PENDANT to the payee making complaint
for the first time of the failure of the
consideration and objectsng to its pay
mcnt. The evidence fails to establish
that the plaintiff ut the time the note
was transferred to him by the payee
knew what was the consideration OF
the note or for what purpose it was
given. or that it was affected with any
infirmity whatever Affirmed.
HUTCHINSON V. HUTCHINSON.