45 N.J.L. 393 | N.J. | 1883
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff sued in the character of assignee of a note drawn by the defendant, and the defence which was set up consisted of two facts — first, that the note was taken after maturity, and, second, that the defendant had made it for the accommodation of the payee.
The former of these circumstances was not proved. The plaintiff was examined by the defendant, and all that she testified to was that she could not remember when the paper came to her hands. She said she had taken it for full value, but could not fix the date of such transfer. There was nothing in the case to overcome the legal presumption that the instrument had been passed to the holder before maturity. The burthen of proof on this subject was on the party who relies upon the fact as a part of his defence. Duncan v. Gilbert, 5 Dutcher 621; Harger v. Worrall, 69 N. Y. 370.
This quotation correctly presents the rule of law on this subject, as it was established by the English courts shortly after the beginning of the present century, and, notwithstanding a different view has been promulgated in one or two recent cases, is, I think, the doctrine that is sustained by the weight of reason and judicial authority.
. The result is that the facts set up were not proved, nor would they have constituted a legal defence if they had been established.
Nevertheless, there must be a new trial, inasmuch as on the proofs the plaintiff did not show herself to be entitled to a judgment in her favor.
The plaintiff was a married woman, her husband being the payee for whose accommodation the note in suit was drawn. The note is dated and is payable in New York, and it appears
Let the rule be made absolute.