affirming district court’s decision that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not adopt the doctrine if presented with the opportunity to do so
How later courts described this case
- affirming district court’s decision that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not adopt the doctrine if presented with the opportunity to do so
- unpublished table decision, available for citation according to 10th Cir. Local Rule 36.3
- under Pennsylvania law, a potential holder in due course does not have a duty to inquire into the underlying transaction “ ‘unless there is proof of such fact from which bad faith may be reasonably inferred’ ”
- Pennsylvania does not adhere to the “close connection” doctrine, which imputes knowledge of an infirmity in a negotiable instrument to a transferee who is closely connected to the transferor
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join in the prophecy of the majority that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not adopt the close-connection doctrine.
I join with the majority in affirming the conclusion of the district court that Kutner Buick accepted the cashier’s check as a holder in due course. I write separately to emphasize that I so conclude only because, as an appellate judge, I am constrained to agree that the district court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous within the meaning of F.R.Civ.P. 52(a).