This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 Excerpt: ...The jury were to determine the actual transaction and a verdict for the plaintiff could not have been ordered. The validity of the notes as enforceable contracts against the defendant depended upon proof of a valuable consideration, the absence of which could be shown by parol evidence, with the burden of proof upon ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 Excerpt: ...The jury were to determine the actual transaction and a verdict for the plaintiff could not have been ordered. The validity of the notes as enforceable contracts against the defendant depended upon proof of a valuable consideration, the absence of which could be shown by parol evidence, with the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to satisfy the jury that the defendant could be held. Hill v. Whidden, 158 Mass. 267, 33 N. E. 526; Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364. The first clause of the fifth request, that the notes, mortgages and assignments were part of the same transaction, is sufficiently covered by the instructions; and the remainder of the request, that a consideration moving either to the makers or to the indorser would support the obligation of each, rests upon the plaintiff's theory that the defendant was liable because at his request the plaintiff had transferred title to the horses and wagons, as the parties understood, to the makers and the defendant, even if the defendant's name did not appear in the bill of sale, or that he had indorsed for their benefit. It could not have been given without directing the attention of the jury to this qualification, and the judge carefully and accurately pointed out the distinction. The exception taken at the close to so much of the charge as failed to make clear to the jury that a valid consideration may have existed, which would bind the indorser without the transfer of any property or of any beneficial interest in property to him, "because it makes no difference whether he got any property or any beneficial interest, if the transaction was done at his request," are not well taken. The charge repeatedly directed the attention of the jury to the respective claims of the parties. They were plainly told ...
Read Less
![McMaster's Commercial Decisions Affecting the Banker and Merchant [From the Decisions of the Highest Courts of the Several States], [1879-1913], Volume 9](https://www4.alibris-static.com/mcmasters-commercial-decisions-affecting-the-banker-and-merchant-from-the-decisions-of-the-highest-courts-of-the-several-states-1879-1913-volume-9/isbn/9781153973335.gif)
