168 Mass. 570 | Mass. | 1897
The actions are brought by an indorsee against the maker of the notes. All of the notes were payable on time to the order of Charles A. Lux, and were by him indorsed to the plaintiffs, and it seems to have been admitted that the signatures of the maker and indorser were genuine. In addition to the notes themselves as evidence, there was evidence that they had been taken by the plaintiffs before maturity, for value, without knowledge or notice that the maker had any defence to the notes as against the payee, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The plaintiffs are described in the writs as of Syra
The notes were given by the defendant to Lux, in renewal of other notes which had been given in payment for a quantity of chair flag, delivered by Lux to the defendant under a contract. The contract called for two hundred tons of best quality chair flag, 66 price to be ($35) thirty-five dollars per ton of (2,000 lbs.) two thousand lbs.” There was evidence that the flag so delivered was not of the quality called for by the contract, and that the fair market value of the flag when delivered did not exceed twenty dollars per ton. The defendant undertook in these actions to recoup the damages sustained by it from the alleged breach of this contract by Lux. The consideration of the indorsement of the notes by Lux. to the plaintiffs was a debt due from Lux to the plaintiffs for coal delivered to him by them. The defendant in this court contended that, as the plaintiffs took the notes in payment of an antecedent debt, they were not purchasers for value; but this contention is not the law of Massachusetts. Ives v. Farmers’ Bank, 2 Allen, 236.
The substance of the remaining contentions of the defendant is, that, as there was evidence of a defence to the notes in whole or in part as against Lux by way of recoupment of the damages suffered from the breach of the contract, the burden was upon the plaintiffs as indorsee, if this defence is made out, to prove that they were bona fide holders of the notes, and that the notes were taken by them before maturity for value, and that therefore the presiding justice could not properly order a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The doctrine contended for by the defendant is undoubtedly
Without considering whether a recoupment of damages for breach of warranty in the sale of merchandise ever would be allowed in a suit brought by an indorsee of only a part of the notes given for the merchandise sold against the maker of the notes, while the remainder of the notes were outstanding and unpaid in the hands of other persons, the uncontradicted evidence for the plaintiffs in each of the present actions made out a prima facie case, and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs did not take the notes in good faith for value before maturity, and the presiding justice rightly ordered in each action a verdict for the plaintiffs.
Exceptions overruled.