Majority
p. 1074BARBIERI v. CASAZZA. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. April 8, 1909.) Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and SEABURY and LEHMAN, JJ.
Headnote
Bills and Notes (§ 537[1] )—Rights of •Transferee—Bona Fide Purchasers— Defenses—Fraud.Where a promissory note was transferred to plaintiff before maturity for value,. and defendant admitted making it, and pleaded that it was originally procured through fraud, but there was nothing to show that plaintiff knew the circumstances under which it was made, it was error to' direct a verdict for defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 1879; Dec. Dig. § 537.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
Action by Viscardo Barbieri against Andrew Casazza. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered;
Charles Zerbarini, for appellant.
Strouse & Strauss, for respondent.
The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note made by the defendant and payable to the order of the Salvini Auto Horn Tubing Company. The note, after several transfers, was delivered before maturity by Brunelli to the plaintiff, who paid the face value
p. 1075
thereof for it. At maturity the note was not paid. The defendant admitted the making of the note, and pleaded that the note was originally made and delivered as the result of fraud, false representation, and conspiracy. No evidence was offered to show that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the circumstances which the defendant pleaded as a defense. At the close'of the case the court directed a verdict for the defendant. This disposition of the case was not justified, in view of the evidence.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.