Even assuming that Davis v. Nash applies to the facts of this case, the most that s. 61(1) does is to give the bank the right to call for endorsement of the "notes", a relief which it has not claimed here. Even if it had so claimed, I consider that the bank would get no better title under s. 61(1) than Community had at the time of the endorsement. The words "such title as the transferor had" must be given a meaning which is not inconsistent with the definition of holder. Furthermore, the bank is not a transferee in the context of the Act. Actual delivery of possession is required where there has been no endorsement.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.