Plaintiff, transferee of a promissory note and a conditional sale contract, brought suit on the negotiable promissory note, and alleged that he was a holder in due course. Defendant answered that there was no consideration for the note. Held, that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that he was a holder in due course by section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides: "Every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course." Industrial Loan & Trust Co. v. Bell, 300 Ill. App. 502, 21 N. E. (2d) 638 (1939).
James A. Lee,
BILLS AND NOTES - HOLDER IN DUE COURSE - BURDEN OF PROOF WHERE THERE IS A WANT OF CONSIDERATION BETWEEN IMMEDIATE PARTIES,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol38/iss3/11