Jones v. Approved Bancredit Corp.
Supreme Court of Delaware
256 A.2d 739 (1969)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Myrtle Jones (defendant) signed a promissory note under which Jones would pay $3,250 in installments to Albee Dell Homes, Inc. (Dell), as payment for Dell’s construction of a house. Dell immediately sold and assigned the note to Approved Bancredit Corporation (Bancredit) (plaintiff) for $2,250. Dell’s builder refused to complete work on the house after an employee knocked the partially completed house off its foundation with a bulldozer. Dell disclaimed responsibility. Bancredit sued Jones to collect the unpaid balance of the note. Jones raised several defenses, including fraud by Dell. Bancredit moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bancredit was a holder in due course and that the defenses claimed by Jones against Dell were not available against Bancredit. The evidence showed that: (1) Dell and Bancredit were both wholly owned subsidiaries of Albee Homes, Inc. (Homes); (2) virtually all of Bancredit’s business came from Dell and other Homes subsidiaries; (3) Bancredit prepared the contracts and financing documents used by Dell; (4) Homes and Bancredit had the same officers and directors, and Homes named Dell’s directors and officers; (5) checks issued by Bancredit were countersigned by Homes; and (6) Bancredit preapproved all of Dell’s transactions. The superior court held that Bancredit was a holder in due course and entered a judgment in favor of Bancredit. Jones appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Herrmann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.