BONA FIDE CLAIMANT.84 One who supposes that he has good title and knows of no adverse claim; 85 one claiming in good faith.86 BONA FIDE POSSESSOR.87 One who not only supposes himself to be the true proprietor of the land, but who also is ignorant that his title is contested by some other person claiming a better right publication of ordinances in papers having a bona fide paid circulation of a certain number of copies, has reference to bona fide subscriptions whether paid in advance or not. Toledo v. Babcock, 33 Oh. Cir. Ct. 29, 31. [1] Bona fide parishioner.Where on founding a children's hospital it was provided that no child should be eligible unless born in the parish, or unless his parents, or one of them, should be or should have been parishioners or a parishioner of the parish, the court, per Bramwell, said: "I should think any person would have a difficulty in defining the difference between a 'parishioner' and a 'bonâ fide parishioner.' I do not know what difference there is between them. The matter may be tested in this way: Suppose, with a view only to one of these elections, a man had taken the premises ten years ago, and had occupied and paid rent and rates for them, I suppose he would have been a bonâ fide parishioner beyond all doubt; and certainly it would have been so if his occupation had been such as that of Mr. Etherington in this case, who, I believe it is admitted, took the premises which he occupies with a view to get a qualification for his Therefore the mere fact of the man occupying a house to get a qualification would not prevent his being a bona fide parishioner. Now, suppose, instead of that being the case, Wilson had taken these premises without a view to the election, but that the windfall had happened a month after he had taken them, I suppose then there would be no doubt that he would be a bonâ fide parishioner. Therefore, it seems to me, he was a bonâ fide parishioner although his occupation was short, and although his object in taking the premises was to qualify his son. Can the combination of these two things prevent his being a bonâ fide parishioner? Certainly not." Etherington v. Wilson, 1 Ch. D. 160, 169. son. [m] Bona fide payments.-The phrase "payments really and bonâ fide made" has been construed to mean payments which the party does not mean to reclaim. Gibson v. Muskett, 11 L. J. C. P. 225, 227. 84. Bona fide claimant: Of: Improvements see Improvements [22 Cyc 16]. Land by adverse possession see Adverse Possession §§ 403-413. 85. Hill v. Tissier, 15 Mo. A. 299, 306; Morrison v. Robinson, 31 Pa. 456, 459. [a] Honest belief on reasonable grounds. It has been stated that a bona fide claimant need have nothing more than an honest belief in the verity of his claim, founded on reasonable grounds therefor. State v. West Branch Lumber Co., 64 W. Va. 673, 689, 63 SE 372. 86. Pennsylvania Co. v. O'Connell, 84 Oh. St. 218, 220, 95 NE 773, Ann Cas1912C 540. 87. Bona fide possessor: Adverse possession by see Adverse Possession §§ 403-413. Improvement of property by see Adverse Possession §§ 9-11; Improvements [22 Cyc 13, 17]. 88. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 79, 5 L. ed. 547 [quot Canal Bank v. Hudson, 111 U. S. 66, 80, 4 SCt 303, 28 L. ed. 354; McLaughlin v. Barnum. 31 Md. 425, 454]; Dorn v. Dunham, 24 Tex. to it; 88 one who, being in actual possession, is ex- BONA FIDE PURCHASER.90 Purchaser with notice see Sales [35 Cyc 364]. 366, 379. To same From:-Continued effect Houston v. Sneed, 15 Tex. 307, 310; Sartain v. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 219, 222, 62 AmD 524 [both quot Sedgwick Damages]. [a] Similar definition-"Where a man shall be said to be bonæ fidei possessor, is, where the person possessing is ignorant of all the facts and circumstances relating to his adversary's title." Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124, 134, 26 Reprint 875 [quot Henderson v. Pickett, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 54, 60, 16 AmD 130; Hicks v. Sallitt, 3 DeG. M. & G. 782, 815, 52 EngCh 609, 43 Reprint 307; Stuart v. Baldwin, 41 U. C. Q. B. 446, 483]. [b] Statutory definition.-"He is a .bona fide possessor who possesses as owner, by virtue of an act sufficient in terms to transfer the property, the defects of which he was ignorant." Civ. Code, art. 503; Beard v. Lufriu, 46 La. Ann. 875, 882, 15 S 207. 89. Adams Glossary, [quot Lindt v. Uihlein, 116 Iowa 48, 55, 89 NW 214]. 90. Bona fide purchaser: Administrator as see Executors and Administrators [18 Cyc 329]. Assignee as: Assignee generally ments § 140. see Assign Assignee for benefit of creditors At: Bill or note see Bills and Notes $$ 570, 575. Mortgage see Chattel Mortgages [7 Cyc 58]; Mortgages [27 Cyc 1312]. Attachment sale see Attachment § 807. Execution sale see Executions [17 Cyc 1298 et seq]. Executor's or administrator's sale see Executors and Administrators [18 Cyc 828]. Mortgage sale see Mortgages [27 Cyc 1726]. Tax sale see Taxation [37 Cyc 1481]. Attaching creditor as see Attachment §§ 547-589. Cancellation of instrument as against see Cancellation of Instruments [6 Cyc 319]. Duration of judgment lien against see Judgments [23 Cyc 1395]. Enforcement of trust against generally see Trusts [39 Cyc 559]. Executor as see Executors and Administrators [18 Cyc 329]. From: Agent see Sales [35 Cyc 363]. Bailee see Sales [35 Cyc 362]. Grantee in fraudulent conveyance see Fraudulent Conveyances [20 Cyc 648]. Infant see Sales [35 Cyc 356]. Execution sale see Executions Representative of decedent see Executors and Administrators [18 Cyc 329]. Trustee see Trusts [39 Cyc 375]. Judgment creditor as see Executions [17 Cyc 1304]. Mortgagee as: Generally see Mortgages [27 Cyc 1183]. At sale of property mortgaged see Chattel Mortgages [7 Cyc 113]; Mortgages [27 Cyc 1483, 1700]. Of: Bill of lading see Carriers [6 Cyc 418]. Bill or note see Bills and Notes §§ 682-735. Bond: Generally see Bonds [5 Cyc 795]. Homestead see Homesteads [21 Logs see Logging [25 Cyc 1590]. Personalty in general see Sales [35 Realty in general see Vendor and Shares of corporate stock see Cor- Standing timber see Logging [25 Stolen property see Sales [35 Cyc Vessel see Maritime Liens [26 Cyc 794]; Shipping [36 Cyc 45, 48]. Warehouse receipt see Warehousemen [40 Cyc 422]. Pledgee as see Pledges [31 Cyc 811]. Rights against fraudulent grantee see Fraudulent Conveyances [20 Cyc 644]. Specific performance by vendee against see Specific Performance [36 Cyc 763]. Usury in commercial paper as defense against see Usury [39 Cyc 1078]. See also Good Faith [20 Cyc 1260]; Innocent Purchaser. 91. Bowman v. Griffith, 35 Nebr. 361, 366, 53 NW 140. See also Scott v. McGraw, 3 Wash. 675, 29 P 260. [a] Similar definition "A bona fide purchaser is one without notice of a prior claim or incumbrance." Guard v. Rowan, 3 Ill. 499, 501 (where the court said: "The object of the recording law was to furnish this notice, but in default of recording, the purposes of the law are effected by notice in any other manner"). [b] Origin of doctrine.-The doctrine of bona fide purchaser originated in equity jurisprudence. Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8 Ala. A. 449, 453, 62 S 549. ... [c] Nature of doctrine.-(1) "The doctrine of bona fide purchase is not a rule of property. It does not determine the question of title between parties. It is only available by way of defense. It is a shield in the hands of a defendant, to protect him against the claim of his adversary. It means that equity will refuse to interfere to aid the plaincircumstances of the case, it would Tax sale see Taxation [37 Cyc tiff in his suit, because, under the 1485]. ties thereto, on the faith that no such claims exist, to, or interest in, such property, and pays a full 96 en- strom v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 247, 250, in courts of chancery, but as the 92. Spicer v. Waters, 65 Barb. (N. [a] Similar definition. "A bona 96. Bouvier L. D. [quot Phillips v. [a] Actual purchaser.-It has been 97. Wood v. Moorhouse, 1 Lans. [a] Similar definition.-"A bona [a] Mere want of notice insum- [b] Sumciency of consideration.- 99 If any is known to the authorities.2 The consideration must be actually paid, at least in cases of tice, and the presence of good faith.1 99. Pomeroy Eq. Jur. § 745 [quot U. S. v. California, etc., Land Co., 148 U. S. 31, 41, 13 SCt 458, 37 L. ed. 354; U. S. v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. 948, 962, 15 CCA 96; Citizens' Bank v. Shaw, 14 S. D. 197, 200, 84 NW 779]; Houston Oil Co. v. Wilhelm, 182 Fed. 474, 477, 104 CCA 618; Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9, 12 [quot Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471, 474, 18 S 178]; Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8 Ala. A. 449, 455, 62 S 549; Gerow v. Castello, 11 Colo. 560, 563, 19 P 505, 7 AmSR 260; Bergstrom v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 247, 250. 126 NW 899; Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 518, 521, 18 NW 647; Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 497, 18 NW 450; Young v. Schofield, 132 Mo. 650, 660, 34 SW 497; Veith v. McMurtry, 26 Nebr. 341, 352, 42 NW 6; Savage v. Hazard, 11 Nebr. 323, 327, 9 NW 83 [quot Lane v. Starkey, 15 Nebr. 285, 289, 18 NW 47]; Gregory v. Whedon, 8 Nebr. 373, 377, 1 NW 309 [quot Lane v. Starky, supra]; Cranwell v. Clinton Realty Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 540, 550, 58 A 1030; Baldwin v. Richman, 19 N. J. Eq. 394, 400; Spicer v. Waters, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 227, 231; Pickett v. Barron, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 505, 507; Jewitt v. Palmer, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 64, 67, 11 AmD 401; La Brie v. Cartwright, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 144, 146, 118 SW 785; Pippin v. Richards, 146 Wis. 69, 74, 130 NW 872 [cit Cyc]. But compare Danielly v. Colbert, 71 Ga. 218 (holding that such notice is only prima facie evidence of mala fides and may be rebutted by showing good faith toward the judgment creditor, and is a circumstance to be considered with other evidence on the question of the bona fides of the purchase and possession). [c] Knowledge of prior fraudulent conveyance.-In an action in which it was held that possession of the land by a fraudulent grantee did not render invalid a title from the fraudulent grantor to a subsequent purchaser who had knowledge of the former conveyance, the court said: "We apprehend the term bonâ fide, as used in the law upon this subject, means only that the purchase shall be a real and not a feigned one; otherwise the knowledge would not be held immaterial, as it is in all the books." Ricker v. Ham, 14 Mass. 137, 141 [quot Jones v. Light, 86 Me. 437, 443, 30 A 71; Hill v. Ahern, 135 Mass. 158, 159]. But see Fraudulent Conveyances [20 Cyc 438]. uable consideration or in any way to put a prudent man on inquiry that the vendee is insolvent or did altered their legal condition to their which, if prosecuted with ordinary not intend to pay, is necessary to prejudice on the faith that there ex- diligence, would lead to actual no- convict the second purchaser of mala isted no claim of any third person to tice, he is charged with knowledge | fides. Shepard, etc., Lumber Co. v. the property, they were not entitled of a prior conveyance. La Brie v. Burroughs, 62 N. J. L. 469, 471, 41 A to maintain their liens as against Cartwright, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 144, 146, 695. (11) One who, having agreed to plaintiff as bona fide purchasers for 118 SW 785. (3) "Where the vendee receive certain shares of stock in value. Waterman v. Buckingham, 79 has knowledge of such facts as would payment of notes held by him, learns Conn. 286, 291, 64 A 212. (6) Where lead the ordinarily prudent man, of equities affecting such stock bea debtor obtained from his creditor using ordinary caution, to make in- fore he delivers up the notes, or in a valid extension of the time of pay- quiries, whereby the fraudulent in- any way carries out the agreement, ment of a debt and gave a mortgage tent would have been discovered, he is not a bona fide purchaser of the for the same, the creditor became a cannot be deemed a bona fide pur- stock. Hayden v. Charter Oak Driv"bona fide purchaser" within the chaser of property." Manwaring v. ing Park, 63 Conn. 142, 147, 27 A 232. meaning of the Recording Act. L'Brien, 75 Minn. 542, 546, 78 NW 1. (12) "A person cannot be deemed to O'Brien v. Fleckenstein, 180 N. Y. 350, (4) "Where a purchaser has knowl- be a bona fide purchaser or a bona 353, 354, 73 NE 30, 105 AmSR edge of any fact, sufficient to put him fide entryman under the homestead 768. on inquiry as to the existence of law if at the time he makes his pursome right or title in conflict with chase from the railway company, or that he is about to purchase, he is attempts to make an entry in the presumed either to have made the land office, another person is in the inquiry, and ascertained the extent actual, open, and known possession of such prior right, or to have been of the land. In other words, under guilty of a degree of negligence such circumstances the would-be purequally fatal to his claim, to be con- chaser or entryman is charged with sidered as a bona fide purchaser. notice of the rights and equities of This presumption, however, is a mere the actual occupant." Manley v. inference of fact, and may be re- Tow, 110 Fed. 241, 254. pelled by proof that the purchaser failed to discover the prior right, not withstanding the exercise of proper diligence on his part." Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354, 362 [quot in part Salmon v. Norris, 82 App. Div. 362, 365, 81 NYS 892]. (5) "To constitute a bona fide purchaser, there must be want of notice, both at the time of the purchase and at the time of the actual payment of the purchase price." Balfour v. Hopkins, 93 Fed. 564, 570, 35 CCA 445. (6) One who purchases with knowledge of an outstanding claim of title or information sufficient to put him upon inquiry is not a bona fide purchaser. Prickett v. Muck, 74 Wis. 199, 206, 42 NW 256. (7) A person who takes a conveyance of lands after attach- 1. Pomeroy Eq. Jur. § 745 [quot ments have been issued thereon and U. S. v. California, etc., Land Co.. with full knowledge of the situation, 148 U .S. 31, 40, 13 SCt 458, 37 L. ed. the consideration for which was the 354; U. S. v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 67 securing of a debt which was then Fed. 948, 962, 15 CCA 96; Citizens' due, is not a bona fide purchaser. Bank v. Shaw 14 S. D. 200, 84 NW Leathwhite v. Bennet, (N. J. Ch.) 11 779]; Houston Oil Co. v. Wilhelm, 182 A 29, 30. (8) "One who buys with Fed. 474, 477; Craft v. Russell, 67 notice or knowledge of the fraud of Ala. 9, 12 [quot Webb v. Elyton Land his vendor in obtaining the property Co., 105 Ala. 471, 475, 18 S 178]; is not a bona fide purchaser. . . . To Thames v. Rembert, 63 Ala. 561, 573 constitute good faith there must be [quot Webb v. Elyton Land Co., suan absence not alone of participation pra]; Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8 Ala. in the fraud or collusion with the A. 449, 453, 62 S 549; Tyler v. Abergh, vendee, but also of knowledge or 65 Md. 18, 20, 3 A 904; Bergstrom v. even notice of the fraud, or of facts Johnson, 111 Minn. 247, 250, 126 NW and circumstances calculated to put 899; Young v. Schofield 132 Mo. 650, an ordinarily prudent business man 660, 34 SW 497: Gregory v. Whedon, on inquiry so that he would ascer- 8 Nebr. 373, 377, 1 NW 309 [quot tain the truth." Wafer v. Harvey Lane v. Starkey, 15 Nebr. 285, 289, County Bank, 46 Kan. 597, 610, 26 P 18 NW 47]; Downs v. Belden, 46 Vt. 1032. (9) Where a lender, as a con- 674, 677. See also Pippin v. Richdition of loaning money on a mort-ards, 146 Wis. 69, 74, 130 NW 872 gage, required the satisfaction of a [cit Cyc]. prior mortgage on the premises, and 2. Young v. Schofield, 132 Mo. 650, a fraudulent satisfaction piece was 660, 34 SW 497. obtained and shown to the lender 3. Nolen v. Farrow, 154 Ala. 269, who then loaned the money in the 272, 45 S 183; Hayden v. Charter Oak belief that the prior mortgage had Driving Park, 63 Conn. 142, 147, 27 been paid and satisfied, the fact that A 232; Hunsinger v. Hofer, 110 Ind. the prior bond and mortgage were 390, 394, 11 NE 463; Nebraska Moline not produced when the satisfaction Plow Co. v. Blackburn, 74 Nebr. 246, piece was delivered did not affect the 248, 104 NW 178; Buchanan v. Wise, lender's position as a bona fide pur- 28 Nebr. 312, 316, 44 NW 458; Veith chaser. Bacon v. Van Schoonhoven, v. McMurtry, 26 Nebr. 341, 352, 42 87 N. Y. 446, 451. (10) The words NW 6; Savage v. Hazard, 11 Nebr. "bona fide," as used in reference to 323, 327, 9 NW 83 [quot Lane v. the loss of the vendor's right of stop- Starkey, 15 Nebr. 285, 289, 18 NW 47: page in transitu by a transfer of the Cranwell v. Clinton Realty Co., 67 [b] Sufficiency of notice.-(1) A bill of lading to a third person who N. J. Eq. 540, 550, 58 A 1030; Baldwin person cannot be a "bona fide pur- bona fide gives value for it, do not v. Richman, 9 N. J. Eq. 394, 400; Pickchaser" who has brought to his at- mean "without notice that the goods ett v. Barron, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 505, tention facts which should have put had not been paid for," but "without 507]; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. (N. him on an inquiry which, if pursued notice of such circumstances as ren- Y.) 622, 631 [cit Spicer v. Waters, with due diligence, would lead to a dered the bill of lading not fairly 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 227, 2311; Jewett knowledge of a lien on the property. and honestly assignable." Some- v. Palmer, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 64, Mangum v. Stadel, 76 Kan. 764, 765, thing more than the knowledge that 67, 11 AmD 401; Hardingham 92 P 1093. (2) If a purchaser has the original vendor sold the goods Nicholls, 3 Atk. 304, 26 Reprint 977; knowledge of circumstances sufficient on credit, for example, knowledge Story v. Windsor, 2 Atk. 630, 631, 26 "In order to be protected as a bona fide purchaser one must purchase in the honest belief that his Vendor had a right to sell, and without notice, actual or constructive, of any interest or equities of others in the property." Pippin v. Richards, 146 Wis. 69, 74, 130 NW 872 [cit Cyc]. To same effect Bergstrom v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 247, 126 NW 899. [a] Absence of notice implied. The words "bona fide," as used in Code § 3853 providing that, when any person has bona fide purchased real estate and has been in possession for four years, the same shall be discharged from the lien of any judgment, were intended to mean the same thing as the words, "without actual notice of such judgment," which are the words used in the prior act. Phillips v. Dobbins, 56 Ga. 617, 622. V. EXIGATUR.11 BONA NOTABILIA. As used in the English probate law, notable goods, or property worthy of notice or of sufficient value to be accounted for, which by the statute of 1 James I was established at £5.12 BONA PARAPHERNALIA. (Spanish, bienes parafernales). In Roman law, the separate property of the wife.18 This paraphernal estate has been carried into the modern civil law and has even been adopted in jurisdictions whose predominating jurisprudence is that of the common law.1 It includes that which the wife brings to the marriage cution, voidable, by reason of some secret understanding between the parties, to create a mere lien"). 10. A maxim meaning "Good faith demands that what is agreed upon shall be done." Burrill L. D. Reprint 776; Harrison v. Southcote, payment of money, and securing the 1 Atk. 528, 538, 26 Reprint 333. conveyance without notice and a clear conscience.'" German Sav., etc., Soc. v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399, 401. "To entitle a party to the character of a bona fide purchaser without notice of a prior right or equity, he must not only have obtained the legal title to the property or the negotiable security, but he must have paid the purchase money, or some part thereof, at least, or have parted with something of value upon the faith of such purchase, before he had notice of such prior right or equity." Spicer v. Waters, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 227, 231. [a] Illustrations.-(1) To be a "bona fide purchaser without notice" defendant must not only have agreed to purchase without notice of the complainant's previous agreement, but he must also have actually paid the purchase money and taken his deed without such notice. Cranwell v. Clinton Realty Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 540, 550, 58 A 1030. (2) "A person who pays the purchase-money after notice of the fraudulent purpose of his grantor is not entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser. In order to entitle a purchaser to protection, it must appear that he bought the land and paid for it before notice of the fraud." Hunsinger v. Hoffer, 110 Ind. 390, 394, 11 NE 463. (3) "To constitute a bona fide purchaser within the meaning of the recording acts, the party receiving the subsequent conveyance must not only have received the same without notice of the prior unrecorded deed, but he must have received the same upon some new consideration advanced at the time, or must have relinquished some security for a preexisting debt due him. And when a party has obtained the legal title, if he has paid but a part of the consideration or value of the property, he is entitled to be considered a bona fide purchaser pro tanto." Pickett v. Barron, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 505, 507. (4) "One is not a bona fide purchaser for value unless he has actually paid the purchase price or become irrevocably bound for its payment, as, for instance, by giving his negotiable obligation, which has been or may be transferred to an innocent purchaser according to the law merchant, so as to cut off his defense to it." Nebraska Moline Plow Co. v. Blackburn, 74 Nebr. 246, 248, 104 NW 178. 4. Veith v. McMurtry, 26 Nebr. 341, 352, 42 NW 6; Savage v. Hazard, 11 Nebr. 323, 327, 9 NW 83 [quot in part Lane v. Starkey, 15 Nebr. 285, 289, 18 NW 47]. 5. German Sav., etc., Soc. v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399, 401; U. S. v. Allard, 14 Land Dec. (U. S.) 392, 405 [quot Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 476, 487, 20 SCt 986, 44 L. ed. 1157]; Craft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9, 12 [quot Webb v. Elyton Land Co., 105 Ala. 471, 475, 18 S 178]; Starr Piano Co. v. Baker, 8 Ala. A. 449, 453, 62 S 549; Deskins v. Big Sandy Co., 121 Ky. 601, 607, 89 SW 695, 28 KyL 565. "The doctrine of bona fide purchaser is not applied to protect an equity as against a legal estate, but to 'protect the legal title against a prior equity, by uniting with such legal title an equity arising from the [a] A deed of an insane grantor is absolutely void, and therefore a bona fide purchaser from the grantee takes no title. German Sav., etc., Soc. v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399, 400. 6. U. S. v. Allard, 14 Land Dec. (U. S.) 392, 405 [quot Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 476, 487, 20 SCt 986, 44 L. ed. 1157]; Deskins v. Big Sandy Co., 121 Ky. 601, 607, 89 SW 695, 28 KyL 565. "The doctrine of bona fide purchase without notice applies only in favor of the purchaser of a legal title. It does not apply in favor of a bare equity. . . . To hold otherwise is to say that a man may acquire title as a bona fide purchaser without notice from the holder of a bare equity, when the fact that the vendor has only a bare equity is notice to him that secret trusts may be outstanding. No authority can be found for applying the doctrine of bona fide purchaser without notice to such a state of case." Deskins v. Big Sandy Co., 121 Ky. 601, 607, 89 SW 695, 28 KyL 565. 7. Pomeroy Eq. Jur. § 754 [quot Coombs v. Aborn, 29 R. I. 40, 68 A 817, 14 LRANS 1248T; Lindley v. Blumberg, 7 Cal. A. 140, 145, 93 P 894; Deroin v. Jennings, 4 Nebr. 97, 100. "The principle is well established, that if a person who has notice, sells to another who has no notice and is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, he may protect his title, although it was affected with the equity arising from notice in the person from whom he derived it." Deroin V. Jennings, 4 Nebr. 97, 100. 8. See also Bona Fide ante p 1145; Good Faith [20 Cyc 1260]. Compare Bad Faith 6 C. J. 880; Mala Fides. 11. A maxim meaning "Good faith does not suffer the same thing to be demanded twice." Burrill L. D. 12. Neal v. Boykin, 132 Ga. 400, 405, 64 SE 480 (where the court said: "If all the goods of the deceased lay within the same jurisdiction, an administration granted by the ordinary was proper; but if the deceased had bona notabilia (that is goods of a sufficient amount) in different dioceses, administration was granted by the metropolitan of the province, by way of special prerogative, to prevent the confusion arising from the appointment of many different administrators. 2 Bl. Com. 508. The question of whether assets must have been located within the diocese at the time of the death of the decedent does not seem to have been a subject which received much consideration in decisions, although in some of the text-books such appears to have been assumed to be the case. The questions arising were also usually as to the grant of letters by an ordinary or the metropolitan of the same ecclesiastical province; not as to property which might be brought from another country"). [a] Debts due decedent (1) at the time of his death are called "bona notabilia" under the laws of England, and under our laws are assets for the purpose of administration. Saunders v. Weston, 74 Me. 85, 89. (2) It has also been held that debts such as are evidenced by promissory notes are bona notabilia at the domicile of the debtor. Moore v. Jordan, 36 Kan. 271, 274, 13 P 337, 59 AmR 550. 13. 1 Sohm Rom. L. (3d ed) 463. [a] A term used to describe a 9. Bouvier L. D. [quot Phillips v. wife's personal clothing and ornaDobbins, 56 Ga. 617, 624, Jackson, J., ments.-Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. dissenting]. See also Norton Bills 299, 303 (where the court said: "The & N. [quot Forbes v. Enid First Nat. familiar phrase, borrowed from the Bank, 21 Okl. 206, 214, 95 P 785] civil law, 'bona paraphernalia,' be(where it is said: "Bona fides' or came the settled description of the 'good faith' is a term used as a mere wife's personal clothing and ornadistinction from 'mala fides,' or 'bad ments, and indicated in them a modifaith.' If paper be purchased with- fied property recognized and protectout anything which the law can con-ed to some moderate extent. . . . The strue into notice, it is spoken of as husband could not devise them away, being purchased in good faith. and after his death the widow could Where, on the contrary, the pur- hold them as against his executors chaser has what the law construes to or legatees, but was obliged to surbe notice of defects or equities, then render them to his creditors where he is a purchaser in bad faith, and there was a deficiency of assets. can secure to himself none of the Even the presents given by him to advantages given to the bona fide her before marriage, such as jewels, purchaser; but bad faith means noth-rings and pictures, could not aftering more than participation in the ward be saved from his creditors. fraud, and resolves itself into a question of honesty or dishonesty, for guilty knowledge and willful ignorance alike involve the result of bad faith"). [a] The proper distinction between bona fides and mala fides is that the former requires the thing to be in fact just what it purports to be. Webster v. Denison, 25 Vt. 493, 498 (where the court said: "Nothing can be farther from the simple definition of bona fide, than to have an absolute sale of property, upon exe And the paramount title of the husband was still preserved, since he could dispose of these articles absolutely in his own life-time"). 14. Ariz.-Rev. St. (1887) § 2100. seq. other than the dowry (dos),15 and that which she acquires during the marriage by a good, as distinguished from a valuable, consideration,16 or by exchange of, or purchase with, separate property,17 or by means of its pledge or mortgage.18 As a rule, however, the fruits and income of separate property, as well as purchases with the proceeds thereof, are not paraphernal but conjugal,19 although there Porto Rico.-Civ. Code § 1314 et seq. Spain. Civ. Code art 1381 et seq; 4622. Wash.-Code (1896) § 2152. 15. France. Civ. Code art 1574. Philippine.-Civ. Code arts 1381, 1396 (1). Spain. Civ. Code arts 1381, 1396 (1). 16. Cal. "All property of the wife, owned by her before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits thereof, is her separate property. The wife may, without the consent of her husband, convey her separate property." Civ. Code § 162. Ida.-Rev. St. (1887) § 2495. La.-"The property of married persons is divided into separate property and common property. Separate property is that which either party brings into the marriage, or acquires during the marriage by inheritance or by donation made to him or her particularly. Common property is that which is acquired by the husband and wife during marriage, in any manner different from that above declared." Civ. Code art 2334. Mexico.-"Property acquired by either after marriage by a gratuitous title, such as inheritance, donation or bequest, does not belong to the community." Schmidt Civ. L. of Spain and Mexico § 46. Philippine.-Civ. Code art 1396 2 170; Brown v. Cobb, 10 La. 172), al- Mexico.-Schmidt Civ. L. of Spain Philippine.-Civ. Code art 1396 (3); Spain. Civ. Code art 1396 (3). Wash.-Webster v. Thorndyke, 11 18. Cal.-Heney v. Pesoli, 109 Cal. Ida.-Thorn V. Anderson, 7 Ida. 421, 63 P 592. Nev.-Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 P 711, 7 P 74. 21. Cal.-Lewis v. Johns, 24 Cal. 98, 85 AmD 49. Compare Ingoldsby v. Juan, 12 Cal. 564. France.-Civ. Code art 1576. La.-Bouligny v. Fortier, 16 La. Ann. 209; Dodd v. Orillion, 14 La. Ann. 68; Compton v. Compton, 6 Rob. 154. Mexico.-Ingoldsby v. Juan, 12 Cal. 564. Philippine.-Civ. Code art 1384; Jacinto v. Salvador, 22 Philippine 376; Eliot v. Montemayor, 9 Philippine 693; Pilapil v. Ponciano, 8 Philippine 190; Casalla v. Enage, 6 Philippine 475. Porto Rico.-Civ. Code § 160. [a] In Texas a different rule prevails. Kempner v. Comer, 73 Tex. 196, 11 SW 194; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Durrett, 57 Tex. 48; De Blane V. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25; Blanchet v. Dugat, 5 Tex. 507; Howard v. North, 5 Tex. 290, 51 AmD 769. 22. Dickerman v. Reagan, 2 La. Ann. 440; Eliot v. Montemayor, 9 Philippine 693; Casalla v. Enage, 6 Philippine 475. 23. Sentence Spanish Supr. Trib. Nov. 8, 1898, Jur. Civ.; Eliot V. Montemayor, 9 Philippine 693; Casalla v. Enage, 6 Philippine 475. 24. U. S.-Slaughter v. Glenn, 98 U. S. 242, 25 L. ed. 122. Cal.-Bodley v. Ferguson, 30 Cal. 511. La.-Preston v. Humphreys, 5 Rob. 299. La. "It is difficult to lay down precise rules as to the limits within which the wife's liberty to purchase on credit should be restricted, but we think the following general propositions are reasonable, viz.: 1. It should be regarded as essential that the wife should have some paraphernal funds to invest, because such investment is the foundation of her right to purchase. 2. The cash so invested should bear such fair pro- | portion to the total price of the pur- Tex.-Cartwright v. Hollis, 5 Tex. chase as to render it reasonably certain that the property purchased would furnish sufficient security for the credit portion of the price. 3. The wife's paraphernal property and revenues should be, ample to enable her to make the acquisition, with the reasonable expectation of being able to meet the deferred payments.' Milv. ler v. Handy, 33 La. Ann. 160." Lewis' Succ., 45 La. Ann. 833, 836, 12 S 952; Metcalf v. Clark, 8 La. Ann. 286; Vanrensellaer's Succ., 6 La. Ann. 803. Spain. Civ. Code art 1396 (2). 4622. 17. Cal.-Oaks v. Oaks, 94 Cal. 66, 29 P 330; Bauer's Est., 79 Cal. 304, 21 P 759; Schuyler v. Broughton, 70 Cal. 282, 11 P 719; Martin v. Martin, 52 Cal. 235; Ewald v. Corbett, 32 Cal. 493; Smith v. Smith, 12 Cal. 216, 73 AmD 533. Compare Siddall Haight, 132 Cal. 320, 64 P 410. Tex.-Cobb v. Trammell, 9 Tex. 19. La.-Trezevant v. Holmes, 38 La. Reinach v. Levy, 47 La. Ann. 963, 17 S 426; Rouyer v. Carroll, 47 La. Ann. 768, 17 S 292; Bachino v. Coste, 35 La. Ann. 570; Miller V. Handy, 33 La. Ann. 160; Drumm v. Kleinman, 31 La. Ann. 124; McCay v. Boatner, 22 La. Ann. 436: Cockburn v. Wilson, 20 La. Ann. 40; Ruys v. Babin, 14 La. Ann. 95; Metcalf v. Clark, 8 La. Ann. 286; Vanrenseller's Succ., 6 La. Ann. 803; Ellis v. Rush, 5 La. Ann. 116; Stroud v. Humble, 2 La. Ann. 930; Dominguez v. Lee, 17 La. 295; Borie v. Borie, 5 La. 87; Newsom v. Adams, 3 La. 231; Ducrest v. Bijeau, 8 Mart. N. S. 192. But the rule here is construed strictly (Jordy v. Muir, 51 La. Ann. 55, 25 S 550; Squier v. Stockton, 5 La. Ann. 741; Dees v. Seale, 5 La. Ann. 688), and if the paraphernal funds have passed out of the wife's control and management, purchases therewith are not considered paraphernal (Tally v. Heffner, 29 La. Ann. 583; Le Blanc v. Le Blanc, 20 La. Ann. 206; Wood v. Harrell, 14 La. Ann. 61; Dees v. Seale, 5 La. Ann. 688; Rousse v. Wheeler, 4 Rob. 114; Rowley V. Rowley, A.) 38 SW 837. 19 La. 557; Comeau v. Fontenot, 19 20. Ariz.-Woffenden La. 406; Dominguez v. Lee, 17 La.leau, 2 Ariz. 91, 11 P 417; Woffenden 295; Stokes v. Shackleford, 12 La. v. Charauleau, 1 Ariz. 346, 25 P 662. 206. Philippine. Civ. Code arts 1385, 1401 (3); Quison v. Salud, 12 Philippine 109. Spain. Civ. Code arts 1385, 1401 (3). Tex.-Fitzpatrick v. Pope, 39 Tex. 314; Grandjean v. San Antonio, (Civ. V. Charou 152. 25. Cal.-Meagher v. Thompson, 49 Cal. 189; Dow v. Gould, etc., Silver Min. Co., 31 Cal. 629; Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 367, 85 AmD 133; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 533; Morrison v. Wilson, 13 Cal. 494, 73 AmD 593; Ingoldsby v. Juan, 12 Cal. 564. La. Caldwell v. Trezevant, 111 La. 410, 35 S 619; Morrow v. Goudchaux, 41 La. Ann. 711, 6 S 563; Delacroix v. Nolan, 7 La. Ann. 682; Kirkland v. New Orleans Gaslight, etc., Co., 1 La. Ann. 299; Langlini v. Broussard, 12 Mart. 242; De Armas v. Hampton, 11 Mart. 552; O'Connor v. Barre, 3 Mart. 446. Philippine.-Civ. Code art 1387; Jacinto v. Salvador, 22 Philippine 376, 378; Gavieres v. Pena, 13 Philippine 449 (where the article was wrongly cited as 1389, and where the court said: "That part of this article relating to the wife's appearance in court has been repealed by section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Bismorte vs. Aldecoa, 17 Philippine 480.) The wife can now appear in court alone and litigate with regard to her property in which her husband has no interest"). Spain. Civ. Code art 1387 (requiring judicial authorization for the wife to litigate concerning her paraphernal property). Tex.-Stone v. Sledge, 87 Tex. 49, 26 SW 1068, 47 AmSR 65; Stephens v. Shaw, 68 Tex. 261, 4 SW 458; Owens v. New York, etc., Land Co., (Civ. A.) 32 SW 1057; Coleman v. Vollmer, (Civ. A.) 31 SW 413; Ford v. Ballard, 1 Tex. Civ. A. 376, 21 SW 146. |