2012, ISBN: 1130187446

[EAN: 9781130187441], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers c… More...

[EAN: 9781130187441], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: .in the language of said section, the party really interested. But where the party having the legal title is also the only party entitled to receive the money and discharge the debtor, although, when collected, he holds the money, not for his own use, but for the use of some other person or persons, and to whose use he is to apply it, or to whom he is bound to pay case, like many of the others, the plaintiff was not the payee. lt is unnecessary, in our opinion, to refer to any other cases holding that such an answer as the one in this case is good as against a plaintiff who holds the note as indorsee, but, as indicated before, it is not good as against a payee of a note, unless there is something in the pleading or about the note which raises a presumption against such ownership, or something, at least, that throws doubt in relation thereto, --as, for instance, where the payee of a note assigns it by written indorsement on the back to another, and then brings suit against the maker without canceling the indorsement, and the petition contains no allegation showing that the note was afterwards transit, --in all such cases, the action must be in the name of the party having the legal title." Yerby v. Sexton, 48 Ala. 311. in an action by the executors of an indorsee to foreclose a note the pleading was not given, but the defendant pleaded lack of title in the plaintiffs, and asked to have determined the conflicting claims of those whom he asserted to be owners, and claimed that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 307. The court construed the early cases which adopted the negotiable-instrument rule, and reconciled them with this provision of the Code, and held that where the legal title of the paper is in the plainti.<