¶1I agree with my brethren in this case, that notes procured as this was are void on the ground of public policy. The transaction out of which it grew, and which constitutes its only consideration, is now made a crime by statute. The defense urged goes to the very essence of the paper, and renders it void, and should be held to prevent any one from acquiring a legal title thereto, or any right to enforce it. The manner of obtaining it should be held a species of duress, involving a degree of turpitude scarcely less dangerous in business transactions than that of forgery; and paper obtained as this was should be subjected to the same rules in commercial dealings. In no other way can a community be protected against the effect of such an outrageous swindle. For the reasons I have stated, I concur in the reversal.
77 Mich. 328
Ward v. Doane
Decided November 1, 1889
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1889-11-01
<p>Promissory note — Good-faith purchaser — Liability of indorser of void note — Evidence—Charge to jury.</p> <p>1. It is a fact of which courts may take knowledge that notes known as “ Bohemian Oat Notes ” are all obtained and given upon a similar scheme or arrangement, and are void, as against public policy, between the maker and payee, or any other person having knowledge or information of the scheme upon which they are based, and by which they are procured.'</p> <p>2. Where the testimony in a suit by an alleged bona fide holder of a “Bohemian Oat Note” tended to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the true character of the paper, before its purchase, he may be cross-examined touching his knowledge, before or at the time of such purchase, of Bohemian oat notes in general, or as to his information or knowledge specially in regard to any such note which had come into his hands or to his attention.</p> <p>8. Where, in a suit upon a Bohemian oat note purchased by a firm composed of five members, only two of the partners were shown to have taken any part in such purchase, or to have known anything about it until after it was made, the presumption is that the remaining members were ignorant of the consideration of the note.</p> <p>4. A Bohemian oat note is void as to all parties acquainted with its character (McNamara v. Gargett, 68 Mich. 454), and no new liability can be created upon it: not even a contract of indorsement between the payee and one acquainted with its fraudulent character.</p> <p>5. Where the purchaser of a Bohemian oat note testified that he had read of this Bohemian oat note scheme, and knew that some farmers were getting into it, in the absence of a denial on his part that said scheme was a fraudulent one, the jury and court have the right to presume that it was the same old fraud with which the whole State is now familiar, and in such a case the jury should be instructed that if they found that the plaintiff knew that the note was given for Bohemian oats, or was so informed before its purchase, he could not recover.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1889-11-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1913
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →