Woodworth v. Richmond Indiana Venture

13 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1149 (1990)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
W
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Woodworth v. Richmond Indiana Venture

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio
13 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1149 (1990)

  • Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD

Facts

Woodworth (plaintiff) executed a promissory note in favor of a limited partnership as partial payment for investment in the partnership. The promissory note stated that if the payments under the note were not timely made, then at the partnership’s option, Woodworth would lose his interest in the partnership. The note was later assigned or negotiated to Signet Bank (Signet) (defendant). Woodworth defaulted on the payments under the promissory note. Woodworth sued Signet and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Signet was not a holder in due course. Signet also moved for summary judgment, claiming that Signet was a holder in due course and arguing that Woodworth was limited in the defenses that could be raised.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 807,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Commercial Law

Key Terms