clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 448   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

348 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

the complainants, or from suing thereon, to recover the amount
thereof, was not granted upon the alleged fraud charged to
have been practised by Baughman, upon the complainants in
obtaining the note; because it was not charged that the de-
fendant had any knowledge of such fraud or imposition, at the
time he received it; but upon the ground, as I understood the
bill, that it was pledged with the defendant to secure a pre-ex-
isting debt, due from Baughman, Nicholson and Cannon to him,
the allegation being, that it was placed with the defendant by
those parties, to secure (he payment of a large sum of money
Which they had borrowed from him; which language was un-
derstood by me to mean, which they had borrowed prior to the
pledge, and, with that understanding, I thought he might not
be entitled to all the rights which attach to a party who had
taken a negotiable security, bona fide, and without notice, and
in the usual course of business. Story on Promissory Notes,
sec. 195, note 1.

If Baughman committed a fraud, or practiced an imposition
upon the complainants, that was a matter between him and
'them, with which the defendant. Lee, had nothing to do, and
for which he could be in no way responsible, unless he had
'notice thereof when he received the note. Baughman was
'trusted by, and made the agent of, the complainants, and if he
abused their confidence, surely they, and not third parties, ig-
norant of the fraud, must bear the consequences, and this claim
to the protection of the court, was the weaker, seeing that after
they discovered the imposition, they did not take the usual and
proper course to warn the public by advertisement, or in some
other way.

U'nquestionably, as between them and innocent third parties,
who might obtain -their note before its maturity, and in the
ordinary course of business, there could not be a doubt as to
who should bear the loss.

There can be no doubt that a bona fide holder of a negotia-
ble instrument for a valuable consideration, without any notice
of facts which affect its validity as between the antecedent par-
ties, if he takes it by indorsement before it comes due, acquires



 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 448   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives