Case Name: True D. Matson, App'lt, v. Justin Blossom, Impl'd, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-04-11
Citations: 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 228
Docket Number: 
Parties: True D. Matson, App’lt, v. Justin Blossom, Impl’d, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 228–234

Head Matter:
True D. Matson, App’lt, v. Justin Blossom, Impl’d, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
Filed April 11, 1890.)
Bills and notes—Fraud—Bona fide holder.
In an action against the maker of a note given upon a purchase of Bohemian oats in pursuance of a contract by which the seller was to sell for him a larger amount at the same price, less a commission, which contract was induced by fraudulent representations, evidence tending to show that plaintiff had notice of the nature of the transaction,and had asserted that such transactions were gambling schemes, and somebody would be the loser, is sufficient to present to the jury the question of plaintiff’s knowledge of the facts and intent to defraud defendant, and a verdict for defendant will not be disturbed.
(Oorlett, J., dissenting.) •
Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon verdict of a jury.
Action upon a promissory note made by defendant, given upon the purchase of thirty-four bushels of Bohemian oats at fifteen dollars per bushel, the seller giving a bond by which he agreed to sell for defendant within a certain time sixty-eight bushels of oats at fifteen dollars per bushel, less a commission for selling. The defense was that the note was obtained by fraud.
Plaintiff purchased the note before maturity and for value. The evidence as to his knowledge of the fraud was conflicting, but there was evidence tending to show that he had notice of the deal, and the terms of the bond, and that he had expressed his opinion that such transactions were gambling schemes, and that somebody would be the loser.
The other facts appear in the dissenting opinion.
W. E. Hobby, for app’lt; Thomas & Desmond, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, on authority of the decision in this case on former appeal reported in 18 N. Y. State Rep., 726.
Dwight, P. J., and Macomber, J., concur.