Case Name: ELI BENEDICT, Respondent, v. Wm. H. DE GROOT et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1867-06
Citations: 3 Trans. App. 66
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELI BENEDICT, Respondent, v. Wm. H. DE GROOT et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Transcript Appeals
Volume: 3
Pages: 66–66

Head Matter:
ELI BENEDICT, Respondent, v. Wm. H. DE GROOT et al., Appellants.
Negotiable Paper — Rights of Assignee of bond fide holder.
An assignee of a promissory note, acquiring title after the maturity of note from a bond, fide holder for value, takes all the rights of such bona fide holder,

Opinion:
Grover, J.
The refusal of the judge to submit tlie case to the jury was not error. The note was entirely impeached; although it was proved that Wm. De Groot made the note in the name of his firm, for a purpose not authorized by the partnership, yet it appeared to have been discounted by the Exchange Bank without any notice of such fact before maturity. The Plaintiff, at maturity, purchased the note of the bank. He was not a party to the note, and had no interest in it prior to such purchase. Under these facts he acquired, by his purchase, all the rights of the bank. The bank was a boná fide holder, and the Plaintiff, by his purchase from it, acquired its rights as such, and was, therefore, entitled to a verdict for the amount of the note. Such a verdict was rendered by direction of the Court. This was correct. This disposes of all the questions raised upon the trial as to the competency of evidence. None of these questions had any relation to the right of the Plaintiff to recover.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
All affirm.
JOEL TIFFANY,
State Reporter.