Court Opinion

ID: 9548618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:06:08.16241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:11.891669
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, J.,
dissenting.
The record shows that plaintiff introduced the check into evidence at the time of the trial. It is clear, then, that the bank was the holder of the check at that time. And I understand that the majority of the court would concede that the bank could have brought the action if the check had come into its possession prior to the commencement of the action. So the decision in this case is made to rest solely upon the extremely technical ground that the elements of a cause of action must exist at the commencement of the action and the defect is not cured by evidence at the trial which supplies the missing element in the cause of action.
Whatever may be said in defense of this rule, I do not think that it should be applied when it is asserted by the defendant for the first time on appeal. If defendant had set up this defense at the time of *210trial, plaintiff would simply have refiled his action and the cause of action would have then been good. As it is, plaintiff is denied relief on appeal on technical grounds which plaintiff can readily circumvent by. filing a new action and, as I understand the majority opinion, plaintiff will be entitled to recover as a holder of the check.
Perry, C. J. joins in this dissent.