EDWARDS v. FOX

EDWARDS v. FOX. Bills and Notes. 1. First Nat. Bank y. Fox, ante, 430, referred to. 2. The evidence on the question whether the plaintiff was an innocent holder in due course, of a promissory note sued on, held properly submitted to the jury. No. 2438. Submitted January 14, 1913. Decided May 26, 1913. Hearing on an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on verdict, in an action on a promissory note. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. W. W. Millón and Mr. B. B. L. Smith for the appellant. Mr. J. J. Darlington for the appellee. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Van Orsdel] Mr. Justice Van Orsdel delivered the opinion of the Court: This case was tried below in connection with First Nat. Bank v. Fox, No. 2437, ante, 430, and is a suit to recover upon the last of the notes given in consideration of the purchase price of the yacht “Idler.” It differs from tbe former case 'only on tbe question of wbetber appellant was an innocent bolder of the note in due course. Tbe evidence on this question presented a sufficient issue of fact to call for its submission to the jury. It was properly submitted, and tbe jury found for defendant. Tbe remaining exceptions to tbe rulings of the trial court, and the condition of tbe bill of exceptions, are tbe same as in No. 2437. Tbe judgment, therefore, is affirmed with costs. Affirmed.