Court Opinion

ID: 9865036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:21:22.892091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:57.307291
License: Public Domain

The following concurring opinion was filed May 29, 1936.
Mr. Justice Bouck,
specially concurring.
I concur in the judgment now entered, reversing the district court’s judgment on the cross-errors of the defendant Mitchell and remanding the case for trial on his first defense. The latter, as I think, sufficiently presents the questions (1) of his being an accommodation maker, (2) of absence of consideration, and (3) of a conditional delivery of the $200 promissory note in question. The trial court will do well to keep constantly before it sections 16, 28 and 29 of the uniform negotiable instruments act, which is our “Negotiable Instruments Law” *480adopted in 1897. The sections appear in C. L. 1921 as sections 3833, 3845 and 3846, respectively. The language is plain. There is no need to undertake in this connection a reconciliation of this court’s opinions in other cases, in /many of which the facts were different and in some of which the express provisions of our statute seem not to have been considered. See: 5 U. L. A. (1930); Brannan’s Negotiable Instruments Law, Annotated (5th Edition, 1932).