 | 1837 - 972 pages
...not defeat the right of a party to recover, who has given a consideration for the bill. We have now shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine....faith in him, there is no objection to his title. The notarial marks, in this case, are only material, as raising a doubt as to the bona fides. The rest... | |
 | William Francis Finlason - 1847 - 304 pages
...consideration. And in Goodman v. Harvey, the Court thus expressly affirm the doctrine in the text. "Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without...faith in him, there is no objection to his title. And gross negligence, though it may be evidence of mala fides, is not the same thing; we have shaken... | |
 | William Paley - 1847 - 732 pages
...; Vallett v. Parker, G Wend. 621 ; Sa/ord v. Wyckof, 4 Hill, 442 ; Ellis v. Wheeler, 3 Pick. 18. " Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff 'without...proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to liis title." Lord Denman ; Goodman v. Harcey, 4 Ad. & Ell. 870. || (e) Ante, p. 89, 90. (0 See the... | |
 | Louisiana. Supreme Court - 1849 - 814 pages
...negligence may be evidence of maid ßdes, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnants of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed...faith in him. there is no objection to his title." See also Usther v. Ricks, 10 Adol. and Ellis, 714. In the present case, however, it is not indispensable... | |
 | Sir John Bayley - 1849 - 678 pages
...maybe the evidence of mala fides but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of a contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the...bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title :" and the other judges concurring, rule absolute. See the rule laid down in this case confirmed, Vther... | |
 | Robert D. Handy, John H. Handy - 1855 - 638 pages
...fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. When the bill has passed to the plaintiff, without any proof of bad faith in him, there is Ellis & Morton ts. The Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. no objection to his title." The case was affirmed... | |
 | Ontario. Court of Common Pleas - 1856 - 594 pages
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary...faith in him, there is no objection to his title."— Bavtrum v. Caddy (9 A. & E. 275), May y. Chapman, (16 M. & W. 355). In the case in the Monthly Law... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1858 - 676 pages
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary...proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to bis title." The ruling in the last case is at variance with the decisions in the two preceding, made... | |
 | Oliver Lorenzo Barbour - 1862 - 714 pages
...fides, but is not the same thing." And he adds, " where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without and proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title. In the absence of bad faith in the holder, if he is in other respects within the rule established for... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1870 - 816 pages
...consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary...faith in him, there is no objection to his title." A final blow was thus given to the doctrine of Gill v. Cubitt The rule established in this case has... | |
| |
We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff', without any proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to his title. 
