Court Opinion

ID: 9417214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:06:39.371435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.663221
License: Public Domain

Mb. Justice Bbadlet.
I concur in the judgment rendered in this case, and in most of the reasons given in the opinion. But, in reference to the consideration of the transfer of the note as collateral security, I do not regard the obligation assumed by the indorsee (the bank), to present the note for payment and give notice of non-payment, as the only, or the principal, consideration of such transfer/ The true consideration was the debt due from the indorsers to the indorsee, and the obligation to pay or secure said debt. 'Had any other collateral security been given, as a mortgage, or a pledge of property, it would have been equally sustained by the consideration referred tonamely, the debt. and the obligation to pay it or to secure its payment. If the indorsers had assigned *59a mortgage for that purpose; the title of the bank to hold the mortgage would have been indubitable. In that case prior equities of the mortgagor might have prevailed against the. title of the bank; because a mortgage is not a commercial security, and its transfer for any consideration whatever does not cut off prior equities. But the bona fide transfer of commercial paper before maturity does .cut off such equities ; and every collateral is held by the creditor by such title and in such manner as appertain to its nature and qualities. Security for the payment of a debt actually owing is a good 'consideration, and sufficient to support a transfer of property. When such transfer is made for such purpose, it has due effect as a complete transfer, according to the nature and incidents of the property transferred. When it is a promissory note or bill of exchange, it has the effect of giving absolute title and of cutting off prior equities, provided the ordinary conditions exist to give it that effect. If not transferred before maturity or. in due course, .of business, then, of course, it cannot have such effect. But 1 think it is well shown in the principal opinion that a transfer for the purpose of securing a debt is a transfer in due course. And that really ends the argument on the subject.