Elwell v. Tatum

<p>1. Nominal Parties. — It appearing that the plaintiff was the endorsee without consideration, and only for convenience, of a number of bonds or promissory notes, the defendants, the makers of such obligations, can make any defense they could if sued by the original payee or payees.</p> <p>2. Bona Fide Holder. — A payee of a negotiable note became its owner after it had been passed into the hands of a bona fide holder in course of trade. In regaining possession of such note the payee is not a bona fide holder, and the maker can urge all defenses that could have been made had the note never ■changed possession or owners.</p> <p>3. Fact Case. — See facts held sufficient to prove that a loan of money made by trustees was made upon the credit of property mortgaged by the trustees to-secure the loan. W'</p> <p>4. Trustees of Unincorporated Organization. — While it is the general rule that persons contracting in name of an unincorporated organization are personally liable, yet to the rule are exceptions. Where, as in this case, upon full knowledge of the facts, it was shown that the loan was made upon the property, and the property was mortgaged to secure the loan, the trustees are not liable, although acting for a church not incorporated.</p> <p>5. Pleading — Non est Factum. — The statutory rule requiring pleas of non est factum to be sworn to does not apply to a defense to a suit upon promissory notes wherein the execution of the notes is admitted, and circumstances are shown from which nonliability of the makers resulted as conclusion of law.</p>