BILLS AND NOTES-PAYEE OF NOTE IS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE UNLESS CONTRARY APPEARS

Authors

Abstract

Defendant, who had jointly signed (ostensibly as maker) a note containing the words, "I promise to pay," was held not entitled to show by parol evidence that he was an accommodation indorser, under 2 MICH. COMP. LAWS 1929, secs. 9249, 9266 (N. I. L., sec. 17), and 9309 (N. I. L., sec. 60), the court saying, by way of dictum, that, in the absence of a contrary showing, the payee named in a promissory note payable to order is a holder in due course. Price v. Klett (Mich. 1931) 238 N.W. 253.

Recommended Citation

BILLS AND NOTES-PAYEE OF NOTE IS HOLDER IN DUE COURSE UNLESS CONTRARY APPEARS, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 456 (1932).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol30/iss3/16