Volume 231 — Mississippi Reports

<bold>1. Bills and notes — assignees of trade acceptances — "holders</bold> <bold>in due course".</bold> Assignees of trade acceptances purchased before maturity for value and in good faith without notice of alleged defenses thereto were "holders in due course". <bold>2. Bills and notes — suit by holders in due course of negotiable</bold> <bold>notes given in renewal of trade acceptances — defense that</bold> <bold>trade acceptances had been given in reliance on promissory</bold> <bold>representations fraudulently made without intention to carry</bold> <bold>out agreement — not available to makers.</bold> Defense that trade acceptances had been given in reliance on promissory representations fraudulently made without intention to carry out agreement was not available against holder of negotiable notes given to holder in due course of trade acceptances in renewal of indebtedness represented by such trade acceptances. <bold>3. Bills and notes — suit by holders in due course of negotiable</bold> <bold>notes given in renewal of trade acceptances — defenses to</bold> <bold>liability on trade acceptances known to makers at time of</bold> <bold>renewal of indebtedness — not available to makers.</bold> Defenses to liability on trade acceptances known to makers at time they executed negotiable notes payable to the order of holder in due course of such trade acceptances were not available<page_number>Page 617</page_number> to makers in suit on such notes given in renewal of indebtedness represented by trade acceptances. <bold>4. Corporations — every individual, domestic or foreign</bold> <bold>partnership qualified to do business in State without</bold> <bold>formalities required of a foreign corporation.</bold> Every individual, domestic or foreign partnership is qualified to do business in the State without the formalities necessary to the qualification of a foreign corporation to do business therein. <bold>5. Bills and notes — in suit by members of foreign partnership</bold> <bold>as assignee-holders in due course of negotiable notes given in</bold> <bold>renewal of trade acceptances — evidence insufficient to</bold> <bold>establish false representations to effect that partnership was</bold> <bold>a corporation qualified to do business in State.</bold> In suit by members of foreign partnership to recover on negotiable notes made payable to the order of their corporate predecessor and given in renewal of indebtedness represented by trade acceptances held by payee corporation as holder in due course, evidence was too vague, indefinite and contradictory to establish that after formation of partnership plaintiffs had made any false representation that they were a corporation and qualified to do business in the State. <bold>6. Appeal — in suit by holders in due course of negotiable notes</bold> <bold>given in renewal of trade acceptances — plaintiffs entitled to</bold> <bold>peremptory instruction.</bold> In such case, plaintiffs were entitled to a peremptory instruction for a verdict in their favor, in absence of sufficient evidence to establish any defense available against plaintiffs, and judgment would be reversed and judgment entered in Supreme Court for plaintiffs for full amount sued for with legal interest thereon from date of maturity of notes. Headnotes as approved by McGehee, C.J.

<bold>1. Larceny — evidence — sufficient to take case to jury on</bold> <bold>question of defendant's guilt.</bold> In prosecution for grand larceny, conflicting evidence was sufficient to take case to jury on question of defendant's guilt. <bold>2. Larceny — conviction based largely on uncorroborated</bold> <bold>testimony of accomplice without substantial corroboration</bold> <bold>thereof, was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence,</bold> <bold>especially in view of documentary evidence that defendant had</bold> <bold>been arrested for speeding and reckless driving approximately</bold> <bold>140 miles from scene of larceny at about the time that it was</bold> <bold>allegedly committed.</bold> <bold>3. Larceny — testimony of accomplice viewed with caution and</bold> <bold>suspicion — conviction may be sustained on uncorroborated</bold> <bold>testimony of accomplice.</bold> A conviction may be sustained upon uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, but the testimony of an accomplice must be viewed with caution and suspicion. <bold>4. Witnesses — cross-examination of accused — considerable</bold> <bold>latitude allowed.</bold> Considerable latitude should be allowed in cross-examination of accused, and State did not exceed the bounds of proper latitude in this case. <bold>5. Larceny — evidence — competent as bearing upon identity of</bold> <bold>stolen property.</bold> Identification of one of several sacks of fertilizer allegedly stolen from fertilizer plant by defendant as one on which witness had made pencil marks at plant prior to theft and further testimony of witness that such sack was in plant before alleged theft but was missing thereafter was competent as bearing upon identity of the stolen property. Headnotes as approved by Holmes, J.<page_number>Page 848</page_number>