Erwin v. . Downs
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- McCornack v. Central State Bank (Iowa 1926)
- William Segar, Inc. v. 1967-1975 Ocean Avenue Realty Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1926)
- Deposit National Bank v. Beaver Trust Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1917)
- First Bank of Notasulga v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
- Young's Estate (Pa. 1912)
- Packard v. Windholz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Edmunds v. Rose (N.J. 1889)
- Butler v. Slocomb (La. 1881)
- Archer v. Shea (New York Supreme Court 1878)
- Dollner, Potter & Co. v. Snow (Fla. 1877)
- Penfield v. Goodrich (New York Supreme Court 1877)
- White v. . Continental National Bank (N.Y. 1876)
- Dalrymple v. . Hillenbrand (N.Y. 1875)
- Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand (New York Supreme Court 1874)
- Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand (New York Supreme Court 1874)
- Mt. Pleasant Branch of State Bank v. McLeran (Iowa 1868)
- Lane v. Krekle (Iowa 1867)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The note was void, as against the makers, because they were married women, and incapable of contracting obligations in that form. But when the defendant endorsed the note, he impliedly contracted that the makers were competent to contract, and had legally contracted, the obligation of joint makers of the note. He also assumed the legal obligation, in most respects, of the drawers of the bill. The fact, known to the plaintiff at the time he took the note, that the makers were married women, did not deprive him of the character of a bona fide purchaser. Nor does the payee's knowledge that the drawee is a married woman, discharge the drawer in case of non-payment of the bill by the drawee. Nor is the endorser discharged, though the name of the maker is forged. (1 Comst., 113.) The fact is not found that the plaintiff was aware the note was accommodation paper. The plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser within the law merchant. Neither the complaint, nor the finding of the *Page 577 referee, tell us who transferred the notes to the plaintiff. The legal presumption is, that he received them from some legal holder in due course of business.
The judgment should be affirmed.
BROWN, J., delivered an opinion to the same effect.
All the other judges concurring,
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.