Ruck v. Levine
Sam Ruck v. Philip Levine
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The defense of failure of consideration is not one of those specified in section-94 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, as rendering title to the instrument defective and, therefore, it did not cause a shifting upon plaintiff of the burden of proving he was a holder in due course. (See Neg. Inst. Law, § 98.) The burden was on the defendant to establish that plaintiff was not a holder in due course. As he failed to meet this burden the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event. Appeal from order dismissed.
All concur; present, Lydon, Peters and Frankenthaler, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.