Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1870–1971 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Magee v. . Badgergreen2 sentences1959This court cited the case of Magee v. Badger ( 34 N. Y. 247, 249 [1896]) where the court said “the rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by any speculated issue as to his diligence or negligence.” “ He is not bound to be on the alert; he does not owe the duty of active inquiry to avert the imputation of bad faith.” This case has been consistently cited by subseqent court decisions and these principles have often been restated in varying forms even as recently as April 8, 1959, in the case of Dyer & Co. v. Monitz ( 16 Misc 2d 1033 , citi 1959This court cited the case of Magee v. Badger ( 34 N. Y. 247, 249 [1896]) where the court said “the rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by any speculated issue as to his diligence or negligence.” “ He is not bound to be on the alert; he does not owe the duty of active inquiry to avert the imputation of bad faith.” This case has been consistently cited by subseqent court decisions and these principles have often been restated in varying forms even as recently as April 8, 1959, in the case of Dyer & Co. v. Monitz ( 16 Misc 2d 1033 , citi | 1 | 4 |
Hall v. Bank of Blasdellgreen2 sentences1970Nor does the holder “ owe to the party who puts negotiable paper afloat the duty of active inquiry, to avert the imputation of bad faith.” (Hall v. Bank of Blasdell, 306 N. Y. 336, 341 [1954].) Neither can the defendants avail themselves of the defense that their signatures were fraudulently procured by Lauer, a third party. 1962The rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by speculations in regard to the purchaser’s diligence or negligence (Hall v. Bank of Bias- dell, 306 N. Y. 336, 341 ; italics supplied.) Moreover, as a holder in due course, the plaintiff holds the instrument free from any defenses available to prior parties among themselves (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 96; North Amer. | 1 | 3 |
Island Trading Co. v. Berg Brothersgreen1 sentence1970The principle to be applied is that “ as between two innocent victims of the fraud, the one who made possible the fraud on the other should suffer.” (Island Trading Co. v. Berg Bros., 239 N. Y. 229, 233 [1924]; Zendman v. Harry Winston, Inc., 305 N. Y. 180, 186 [1953]). | 1 | 1 |
Zendman v. Harry Winston, Inc.green1 sentence1970The principle to be applied is that “ as between two innocent victims of the fraud, the one who made possible the fraud on the other should suffer.” (Island Trading Co. v. Berg Bros., 239 N. Y. 229, 233 [1924]; Zendman v. Harry Winston, Inc., 305 N. Y. 180, 186 [1953]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapowitch
green
2 sentences1971American was not bound, at its peril, “to be upon the alert for circumstances which might possibly excite the suspicions of wary vigilance. [It] does not owe to the party which puts negotiable paper afloat the duty of active inquiry, to avert the imputation of bad faith.” Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapowitch, 296 N. Y. 226, 230 .) Special Term’s reliance upon rule 8c-l of the Rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Code of Fed. 1954The rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by speculations in regard to the purchaser’s diligence or negligence (Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapowitch, 296 N. Y. 226, 229-230 ; see, also, Cheever v. Pittsburgh, Chenango & Lake Erie R. | 2 | 1954–1971 |
B. W. Dyer & Co. v. Monitz, Wallack & Colodney
green
1 sentence1959This court cited the case of Magee v. Badger ( 34 N. Y. 247, 249 [1896]) where the court said “the rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple test of honesty and good faith, and not by any speculated issue as to his diligence or negligence.” “ He is not bound to be on the alert; he does not owe the duty of active inquiry to avert the imputation of bad faith.” This case has been consistently cited by subseqent court decisions and these principles have often been restated in varying forms even as recently as April 8, 1959, in the case of Dyer & Co. v. Monitz ( 16 Misc 2d 1033 , citi | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Cheever v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad
green
1 sentence1933Co. ( 150 N. Y. 59, 65 ) in the following language: “ He is not bound at his peril to be on the alert for circumstances which might possibly excite the suspicion of wary vigilance; he does not owe to the party who puts the paper afloat the duty of active inquiry in order to avert the imputation of bad faith. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Lord v. A. & J. F. Wilkinson
neutral
1 sentence1876He does not owe the party wh.o puts negotiable paper afloat the duty of active inquiry to avert the imputation of bad faith.” In Lord v. Wilkinson (supra), and Raphael v. Bank of England (17 C. | 1 | 1876–1876 |
Belmont Branch of State Bank of Ohio v. Hoge
green
1 sentence1874The rights of the holder are to be determined by the simple tests of honesty and good faith, and not by a speculative issue as to his dili- • gence or negligence.” These propositions are reaffirmed m Belmont Bank v. Hoge (supra). | 1 | 1874–1874 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.