This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-02-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| However, it does not follow as a legal proposition that simply because petitioner Atrium was not a holder in due course for having taken the instruments in question with notice that the same was for deposit only to the account of payee E.T. Henry that it was altogether precluded from recovering on the instrument. The Negotiable Instruments Law does not provide that a holder not in due course can not recover on the instrument.[19] | |||||