Beeman v. Lovett
T. BEEMAN v. WILLIAM E. LOVETT
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court:
Mrs. Cameron, the payee of the note sued upon, gave no value for it; her assignee, the plaintiff here, holds it for her, and for the mere purpose of instituting this action.
The Court below erred upon the facts found in holding that McCarthy had authority from the defendant to deliver the note to the assignee of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the note of 1867, or for any other purpose.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.