Freeman v. Sutton

¶1 It was true, as a general principle, that the holder of a negotiable note is presumed in law to be the holder of it for value, and is entitled to sue and recover upon it, and if nothing further had appeared in the case, the plaintiff would have been entitled to their verdict. But if the note in question, was drawn and made by the defendant to his own order, and was endorsed by him and delivered to the plaintiff for the purpose and with the understanding that the latter should get it negotiated or discounted for the benefit of the defendant merely, and that was not done, and that the plaintiff did not himself advance the money upon it to the defendant, the presumption of law just stated would not arise in the case, nor could he recover upon it, unless he had proved to the satisfaction of the jury, that he either got it negotiated by some other person for the defendant’s benefit, or had himself advanced him the money upon it. The presumption suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff, that inasmuch as the note had continued in the hands of the plaintiff until long after its maturity, it was to be presumed that he either let the defendant have the money himself for it, or endorsed it and obtained the money for him from some other person on it, and after its maturity *267 had to take it up for non-payment, is liable to the objection of presuming not only too much, but involves the presumption itself into an alternative, and altogether into too much uncertainty, and, therefore, it cannot rebut or supersede the presumption we have before referred to, and which, so far as presumptions merely are concerned, must control the case. Besides, when a state of facts, or a condition of things is one established by the proof in a ease, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown by other and further evidence. The several letters of the parties respectively, together with the note itself, were in evidence before the jury, and it would be for them to say whether it was drawn and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff with the understanding merely, that the latter was to get it negotiated for the benefit of the former, if that was so, and it was not done by him, he could not recover without proving to their satisfaction, that he had himself let the defendant have the money upon it.