 | Tennessee. Supreme Court - 1905 - 836 páginas
...for the bill. Gross negligence may be taken as evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill is passed to the plaintiff without any Bank v. Butler. proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection... | |
 | Robert Emmet Bunker - 1906 - 716 páginas
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary...faith in him, there is no objection to his title." The following cases recognize and enforce the same rule: Uther v. Rich, 10 Ad. & El. 784; Artbouin... | |
 | Harvey White Magee - 1906 - 864 páginas
...may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of a contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without any proof of bad faith, there is no objection to his title.' The weight of American authority is to the same effect. Murray... | |
 | Joseph Asbury Joyce - 1907 - 1244 páginas
...misuse or misappropriation of the paper, even gross negligence will not affect his right of recovery, passed to the plaintiff, without any proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title." Edwards on Bills and Promissory Notes (2d ed., 1863), p. 300, *318. See also id., p. 353, *372, p.... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1909 - 1226 páginas
...consideration for the bill; gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without...faith in him, there is no objection to his title." That case was followed by Uther v. Eich, 10 Ad. & E. 784, 2 P. & D. 579, which was also argued before... | |
 | Abraham Clark Freeman - 1909 - 1214 páginas
...consideration for the bill; gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without any proof of bad f.iith ia him, there is no objection to his title." That case was followed by Uther v. Rich, 10 Ad.... | |
 | Ernest Wilson Huffcut - 1910 - 914 páginas
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary...faith in him, there is no objection to his ' title." The following cases recognize and enforce the same rule: (Uther v. Rich, 10 Ad. & El. 784; Artbouin... | |
 | James Smith McMaster - 1905 - 966 páginas
...for the bill. Gross negligence may be taken as evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill is passed to the plaintiff without any proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title."... | |
 | Benjamin Russell - 1921 - 644 páginas
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala-fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Where a bill is passed to the plaintiff without any proof of bad faith in him there is no objection to his... | |
 | Howard Leslie Smith, William Underhill Moore - 1922 - 874 páginas
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without...faith in him, there is no objection to his title." That case was followed by Luther v. Rich, 10 Ad. & El. 784, which was also argued before a full court,... | |
| |
We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff', without any proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title. 
