Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302 (2026)

Holder in due course

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 75-3-106(d), "holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if:
- (1) The instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
- (2) The holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 75-3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 75-3-305(a).

(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument.

(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor's sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.

(d) If, under Section 75-3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance.

(e) If (i) the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and (ii) the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured.

(f) To be effective, notice must be received at a time and in a manner that gives a reasonable opportunity to act on it.

(g) This section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions.

Former § 75-3-302: Codes, 1942, § 41A:3-302; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 3-302; Laws, 1992, ch. 420, § 28, eff. 1/1/1993.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: Stuckey v. Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stuckey v. Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002). ¶ 27.”

Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Evans, 406 So. 2d 15 (Miss. 1981). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302 (1972). We cannot say from a review of the record that this determination was in error.”

Holifield v. BancorpSouth, Inc., 891 So. 2d 241 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002). This statute removes the issue of the varying endorsements on checks made out to Harrell as trustee.”

Carson v. McNeal, 375 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D. Miss. 2005). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002) (quoted in Stuckey v.”

Bank of Crystal Springs v. First Nat. Bank, 427 So. 2d 968 (Miss. 1983). “[2] Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302 (1) (1972), sets out the requirements that must be met for one to be a holder in due course: A holder in due course is a holder who takes the [negotiable] instrument (a) for value; and (b) in good faith; and (c) without notice that it is overdue or…”

Isaac Stuckey v. Provident Bank (Miss. 2003). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302 (a) (Rev. 2002).”

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Branaman, 554 F. Supp. 2d 645 (N.D. Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (2008). Holder in due course status confers the right to enforce the negotiable instrument *649 upon the holder.”

Evelyn Temple Addington v. Milton Temple (Miss. 1998). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302 (Supp. 1999). The commercial need for the unimpeachable validity of the names on a negotiable instrument is absent.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) — 4 cases

Stuckey v. Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002). ¶ 27.”

Carson v. McNeal, 375 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D. Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002) (quoted in Stuckey v.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a)(l) — 1 case

Carson v. McNeal, 375 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D. Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-3-302(a) (Rev.2002) (quoted in Stuckey v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.