51 Mo. 272 | Mo. | 1873
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented by this record is, whether the maker of a negotiable note is bound to pay the same in the hands of an innocent holder who took a transfer of the same for value before maturity, where such note, after being execu
There is much conflict in the authorities on this point, both in England and America, so much so that it is useless to try to reconcile them, and I shall not undertake to review them here. The tendency of the decisions of this court, is that such a forgery avoids the note, not only as between the original parties, but as to innocent holders for value. See Trigg vs. Taylor, 27 Mo., 245; Haskell vs. Champion, 30 Mo., 136; Ivory vs.Michael, 33 Mo., 398; Presbury vs. Michael, 33 Mo., 542; Briggs vs. Ewart, ante p., 245.
I maintain that this rule is supported by the weight of reason, if not of authority.
Why Should, the holder be allowed to-recover on forged commercial paper % It is urged that to prohibit a recovery in such case would impede its circulation. But there need be no unnecessary delay created by this rule. In all cases the purchaser of such paper must be satisfied that his indorser has the title. He ought also to satisfy himself that he is honest, or if not honest, that he is a responsible indorser.
The insertion of the ten per cent, interest from date, was a complete forgery, and, in my opinion, rendered the note void-in the hands of the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.