Case Summary Of Griffith Vs. Mellon Bank Na

Seth Ross Professor Depersis Business Law 2 Griffith vs. Mellon Bank NA Case Summary The case at hand takes place under commercial paper law. Commercial paper is a written instrument or document such as a check, promissory note, or a certificate of deposit, that represents a duty of one individual to pay money to another. A standout amongst the most critical parts of commercial paper is that it is negotiable, which implies that it might be unreservedly exchanged starting with one party then onto the next, usually through indorsement. Since commercial paper constitutes personal paper, it is transferable by deal—and could be credited, lost, stolen, and burdened. A promissory note is a two-party paper that consists of the maker (the person who …show more content…

To be a holder in due course, there are certain requirements that must be met. First, Griffith must be a holder of the instrument. Griffith also needed to take the negotiable instrument in good faith, and have no notice that the instrument is overdue or dishonored. The instrument must also be free of all real defenses. Coincidentally, there is one very important requirement that Griffith failed to meet. To be a holder in due course, Griffith must have given value for the instrument. Griffith only paid value for the book that contained the instrument—while he was unaware that the instrument was inside the book. Griffith also could not establish his entitlement to enforce the instrument. Pennsylvania also declared that the certificate of deposit matured for more than 20 years, and that the certificate was paid by the debtor to the creditor. Griffith’s proof that the instrument had not been paid was not substantial enough to overcome the court’s …show more content…

An important factor is the status of the instrument. Griffith showed evidence displaying that the instrument had not yet been paid. Mellon bank stated that instrument has in fact been paid. When Griffith sought proof the certificate had been paid, the records could not be located. The law of Pennsylvania states: “After the lapse of twenty years, all debts ... not within the orbit of the Statute of Limitations are presumed to have been paid.... Until the passage of twenty years it is the burden of the debtor to prove payment; after the passage of twenty years, it is the burden of the creditor to establish nonpayment and for the satisfaction of such burden the evidence must be clear and convincing and must consist of proof other than the specialty itself (leagle).” Griffith points to the facts that he holds the certificate of deposit which has not been checked, paid, or surrendered, and that it is Mellon's strategy to stamp certificates of deposit as paid or interest its surrender when certificates of deposit are reclaimed. Because a bank acts at its own risk in paying a certificate of deposit without obliging that it be surrendered, Griffith asks the court to draw the induction that the certificate has not been