17 Minn. 239 | Minn. | 1871
By the Court.
This is an action upon a promissory note payable by its terms to C. W. Stevens, or bearer, and signed by the defendant.
There was plenary evidence showing that the plaintiff is a bona fide holder of the note, having purchased the same before maturity in good faith, without notice and for value.
The only defence urged here is that there Avas no delivery
The fact that there has been no delivery of the instrument by or for tho ihaker, or by or for an indorser through whom the holder must claim, is a defect or infirmity of title within the meaning of the rule above cited, a rule which is said to be laid up among the fundamentals of the law. Worcester County Bank vs. Dorchester and Melton Bank, 10 Cushing 488; Edwards on Bills & Notes 188; Gould vs. Seger, supra; Ingham vs. Primrose, 7. C. B. (N. S.) 82; Shippey vs. Carrol, 45 Ill. 285; Clark vs. Johnson, 52 Ill.
The order denying a new trial must be reversed.