Case Name: VALLEY JITNEY JUNGLE CO. v. HAMADY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-08-29
Citations: 264 Mich. 354
Docket Number: Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 37,309
Parties: VALLEY JITNEY JUNGLE CO. v. HAMADY.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, "Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 264
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
VALLEY JITNEY JUNGLE CO. v. HAMADY.
Bills and Notes — Holder in Due Course — Eraud-—Knowledge oe Agent Having Adverse Interest Not Imputable.
In aetiou on promissory note by transferee of payee, knowledge of defense of fraud and failure of consideration of officer of payee, who sometimes acted as attorney for plaintiff, held, not imputable to plaintiff, where said officer’s interest in transfer was adverse to that of plaintiff, and therefore latter is holder in due course.
Appeal from Genesee; Parker (James S.), J.
Submitted June 21, 1933.
(Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 37,309.)
Decided August 29, 1933.
Assumpsit by Valley Jitney Jungle Company, a Texas corporation, against Kamol Hamady on a promissory note. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and judgment ordered for plaintiff.
Carton & Gault, for plaintiff.
McTaggart S Krapohl, for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Plaintiff, transferee of the payee of a promissory note, sued thereon. The defense being fraud and failure of consideration, the question is of plaintiff's holding in due course. Defendant had verdict and judgment. Plaintiff has appealed.
Plaintiff wYas a holder in due course in the sum of $1,000 and interest unless the knowledge of fact of defense of one Brownian-officer of the payee and sometimes attorney for plaintiff, can be held to be imputed or chargeable to plaintiff. ' Evetf if Brown were attorney or agent of plaintiff, his interest in transfer of the note was adverse to interest of plaintiff, and not imputable. The case is ruled by State Savings Bank of Ionia v. Montgomery, 126 Mich. 327. See Peoples Savings Bank of West Bay City v. Hine, 131 Mich. 181; Tapert v. Lehmann, 259 Mich. 447.
Plaintiff was' entitled to directed verdict for amount stated.
Reversed, with costs, and remanded for judgment accordingly.
McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, "Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.