Burns Mortgage

Burns Mortgage, Inc. v. Fried

Jamie Hobgood Porter

Rasmussen College

The Burns Mortgage Company, Inc. as holder brought an action in assumpsit upon six promissory notes against Erwin M Fried, the maker, each promising the payment of $1,000, all of even date and like tenor. The notes were executed and delivered in Florida and were there payable to Golden Isles Corporation at intervals of six months. Prior to maturity the payee indorsed and delivered them to the Williamson, who after refusal of payment at maturity transferred them by delivery to the petitioner. Under Burns Mortgage Co. v. Fried a definite construction of the Negotiable Instrument Law by the U.S.C, binding upon the local tribunals, must be accepted by the federal courts. But we cannot think that the ruling and action in the Northwestern Bank Case amount to such a construction. That case, decided by the Appellate Court, First District, October, 1926, involved title to stolen bonds held by one claiming as a bonafide purchaser, after receipt of notice of the theft. The court there said: The notice having been received by the proper agent of the bank to receive, open and acknowledge its mail in the line of his duties, we think the bank is estopped from claiming that it did not have actual knowledge of the defect in the title to the bonds it subsequently received. The State Supreme Court denied an application for certiorari without more. The argument is that this amounted to approval of the construction placed upon the statute by the Appellate Court. The point is not well taken. National Bank v. Uptown State Bank, constructed the statute differently, and made no reference to the earlier case. We cannot know upon what ground certiorari was denied. The Illinois Supreme Court has declared that, Whether one has notice of certain fact in question of fact and not of law. The District Court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to amend but, after this privilege was refused a judgment of non-pro. was entered....