 | 1837 - 972 lehte
...not defeat the right of a party to recover, who has given a consideration for the bill. We have now shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine....faith in him, there is no objection to his title. The notarial marks, in this case, are only material, as raising a doubt as to the bona fides. The rest... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of King's Bench, John Leycester Adolphus, Thomas Flower Ellis - 1837 - 1120 lehte
...where the party has given consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the...faith in him, there is no objection to his title. The evidence in this case as to the notarial marks could only weigh as rendering it less likely that... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery, Thomas Hare - 1843 - 832 lehte
...negligence," (says Lord Denman in Goodman v. Harvey (b) ), " may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine." The doctrines of law and equity upon this point ought to be concurrent. My conclusion, upon this part... | |
 | George Spence - 1846 - 708 lehte
...are not now considered as the same thing. " Gross negligence may be evidence of mala ßdes, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine" (m) ; the doctrines at law and equity on this point are concurrent. »CHAPTER III. [*426] DOCTRINE... | |
 | William Paley - 1847 - 732 lehte
...; Vallett v. Parker, G Wend. 621 ; Sa/ord v. Wyckof, 4 Hill, 442 ; Ellis v. Wheeler, 3 Pick. 18. " Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff 'without...proof of bad faith in him, there is no objection to liis title." Lord Denman ; Goodman v. Harcey, 4 Ad. & Ell. 870. || (e) Ante, p. 89, 90. (0 See the... | |
 | William Francis Finlason - 1847 - 304 lehte
...there is no objection to his title. And gross negligence, though it may be evidence of mala fides, is not the same thing; we have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine," alluding to a series of cases in which the law laid down in the text, as to the necessity for mala... | |
 | Sir John Bayley - 1849 - 678 lehte
...where the party has given consideration for the bill. Gross negligence maybe the evidence of mala fides but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of a contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff without any proof of bad faith in him,... | |
 | Louisiana. Supreme Court - 1849 - 814 lehte
...where the party has given consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of maid ßdes, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnants of the contrary doctrine. Where the bill has passed to the plaintiff, without any proof of... | |
 | George Ross - 1853 - 932 lehte
...where a party has given consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine." See also Uther v. Rich, 10 A. and E. 784. The property of Exchequer Bills passes by delivery like Promissory... | |
 | Oliver Lorenzo Barbour, New York (State). Supreme Court - 1854 - 722 lehte
...tended to show mala fides. Lord Denman, CJ says, " Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but is not the same thing." We have shaken off the last remnant of the contrary doctrine. Hall c. Wilson. When the bill has passed to the plaintiff without any proof of j bad faith in him,... | |
| |
I believe we are all of opinion that gross negligence only would not be a sufficient answer where the party has given consideration for the bill. Gross negligence may be evidence of mala fides, but it is not the same thing. We have shaken off the last... 
