ready stated that mere suspicions or facts which 461. Okl.-Jenkins etc., Bank, 34 Okl. 607, 126 P 757. Vt.-Barton Sav, Bank, etc., Co. v. Wash.-Hughes v. Flint, 61 Wash. 460, 463, 112 P 633 [quot Cyc]. Wis.-Kipp v. Smith, 137 Wis. 234, 118 NW 848; Hodge v. Smith, 130 Wis. 326, 110 NW 192; Germania Nat. Bank v. Mariner, 129 Wis. 544, 109 NW 574. IN Eng. Awde v. Dixon, 6 Exch. 869, 5 Eng L& Eq 512; Lamert v. Heath, 15 M. & W. 486, 153 Reprint 941. Man.-Pickup v. Northern Bank, 18 Man. 675. Ont.-Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Gillis, 2 Dom LR 250, 3 Ont WN 646, 20 OntWR 622, 21 OntWR 224; Swaisland v. Davidson, 3 Ont. 320. See Colonial Trust Co. v. Getz, 28 Pa. Super. 619 (question of fact for the jury); Haines v. Atwood, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 196 (question of fact for the jury). the note," but it must plainly appear that the erasure or irregularity existed at the time the note was taken. No alteration will constitute constructive notice, unless it is a part of the note itself, and hence an alteration of marginal figures is not nodefenses maintainable because of the infirmities. Jenkins v. Planters', etc., Bank, 34 Okl. 607, 126 P 757. one of (3) The purchaser of a note from the indorsee of a corporation which, on its face, showed that it had been given in payment for stock, took the note subject to the defense of illegality in the transaction, as prescribed by statute. Sturdevant V. Falvey, (Tex. Civ. A.) 176 SW 908. (4) Where the abbreviation "Mem." appeared on the face of an instrument, such irregularity, together with the fact that the instrument which is a bank check had been outstanding for two and one-half years, was sufficient notice that it was not given in the usual course of trade. Skillman v. Titus, 32 N. J. L. 96. (5) In a note sued on, the words "payable at" were printed in the lower left hand corner with no line following for the insertion of a place of payment. Under these words the name of a bank was added after the note was delivered, some of the words added being in a line lower than the signature of the maker. It was held that the court properly refused to instruct that, if plaintiff bank in good faith purchased the note, the jury must find for plaintiff, the alteration being made in such a manner as to put any prudent purchaser on inquiry. Marion Nat. Bank v. Russell, 14 KyL 368. (6) Although defendant, as the makers of a note, was jointly and severally liable for its payment, he was entitled by way of defense to prove that, between the makers themselves, he was a surety, and, such relation appearing in the body of the note, the holder was charged with notice thereof. North Ave. Sav. Bank v. Hayes, 188 Mass. 135, 74 NE 311. (7) Where a note bearing the words and figures, "No. of Note, 2,821-No. [a] The rule has been applied: of Policy 654,971," was indorsed by a (1) To the erasure of the name of local insurance agent to the general one of the sureties. McCramer v. agent, the latter was charged with Thompson, 21 Iowa 244. (2) To the notice that it was a premium note erasure in a note of the original place belonging to the company. Bresee v. of payment, and the interlineation of Crumpton, 121 N. C. 122, 28 SE 351, a new place. Mitchell v. Reed, 106 (8) Parties accepting a check several SW 833, 32 KyL 683. (3) To an am- days past due, and on the face of biguity as to whether one signed in- which were the letters "N. G.," writdividually or in representative ca- ten by a bank which had dishonored pacity. Germania Nat. Bank V. it, in payment for goods purchased Mariner, 129 Wis. 544, 109 NW 574. two months prior thereto, will not (4) Where the name of the indorsee be deemed bona fide purchasers in had been crossed out. Minneapolis good faith and for value, and cannot Threshing Mach. Co. v. Gilruth, 109 recover thereon where the drawer Minn. 23, 122 NW 466. (5) Where a had paid the check. Spero v. Holonote is taken on the condition writ- schutz, 36 Misc. 764, 74 NYS 852. (9) ten on the back thereof, that it is to Where a note had been issued by be held by the payee until due. two persons and afterward returned Swaisland v. Davidson, 3 Ont. 320. to one of the makers by the payee to (6) Where a bank in accepting a note, be canceled, and thereafter such the date of which had been visibly maker sold and delivered it to a third altered, could not rely on the pre-person, the purchaser is chargeable sumption that the alteration was with notice, from the face of the made at or prior to the execution of the instrument, but rather it was put on inquiry by the appearance of the note. Barton Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 89 A 639, 51 LRANS 346. "A note may carry on its face such a danger signal that the purchaser may disregard same only at his peril. It may in many forms, in the language of Lord Denman, 'bear its death wound on its face.'" Gaston v. J. I. Campbell Co., 104 Tex. 576, 581, 140 SW 770. [b] Other illustrations.-(1) The fact that the name of the payee of a note had not been erased, but a pen had been drawn through it and the name of the indorser written in ink of a different color than that used to make and sign the note is sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry as to alterations. Holbart v. Lauritson, 34 S. D. 267, 148 NW 19, LRA 1915A 166. (2) Where the owner of a note and trust deed, having an indorsement thereon that he is the holder, places them in the hands of an agent to collect the interest, and the agent deposits them as collateral security, the indorsement is notice to the pledgee of such ownership. Chicago Title, etc., Co. v. Brugger, 95 Ill. A. 405 [aff 196 Ill. 96, 63 NE 637]. [8 C. J.-33] paper, that the maker was himself [c] Where a note bears on its [d] Where a certified check was marked by the drawee bank with two stars, indicating that it had been paid, but the money was afterward refunded, and the check returned to a member of the payee firm, who fourteen months later transferred it to plaintiff, plaintiff was put on notice, and his position is no stronger than that of the transferor. Silverman v. National Butchers', etc., Bank, 50 Misc. 169, 98 NYS 209. [e] "In liquidation," when added to the signature of one of the members of a commercial firm, is sufficient notice to the payee that the firm is dissolved and that the partner could not bind his copartner without a special authorization. Speake v. Barrett, 13 La. Ann. 479. [f] The fact, appearing on the face of the instrument, that the nots was given by a married woman, is sufficient notice to a purchaser to put him on inquiry as to whether or not it inured to her separate use or band could be dispensed with. whether the authority of her huscher v. Kerr, 7 La. Ann. 144; McComas v. Green, 6 La. Ann. 121; De Gaalon v. Matherne, 5 La. Ann. 495. Pil cir [g] "Ne varietur" is not a cumstance calculated to create a reasonable suspicion and put the transferee on inquiry. Kentucky Bank v. Goodale, 20 La. Ann. 50; Nott v. WatHaifleigh, 8 La. Ann. 457; Schmidt son, 11 La. Ann. 664; Maskell v. v. Frey, 8 Rob. (La.) 435; Chalaron v. Vance, 7 La. 571; Abat v. Gormley, N. S. (La.) 143; Fusilier v. Bonin, 12 3 La. 238; Canfield v. Gibson, 1 Mart. Mart. (La.) 235. fact that a note was made on Sun[h] Note dated on Sunday.-The day is not a defect so apparent on its face as to subject the purchaser having a right to presume that the to the doctrine' of caveat emptor, he note was properly executed, especially where it was particularly warranted to him by the vendor. Gilman v. Berry, 59 N. H. 62. [i] Alteration not clearly apparent.-But where a note was altered after it had been signed by a surety, by the insertion of words stating that interest was to be paid semiannually, and the ink used in writing the different parts of the note was the same, and the handwriting, although differing sufficiently to be readily distinguishable on a close inspection, was not strikingly different, the alteration was not so patent as to have put the payee on inquiry so as to charge him with constructive notice, that the alteration was made after the surety had signed the note. Blakey v. Johnson, 13 Bush (Ky.) 197, 26 AmR 254. [j] Effect of previous dealings."But, if it were otherwise, the fact that hundreds of other drafts, with the words 'as advised' in each, had been all promptly accepted and paid by the corporation at maturity, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, would necessarily dispel any possible suspicion that the words had a sinister meaning, and that there was anything wrong with the paper." American Trust, etc., Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129, 133, 70 NW 1085. 5. 6. See supra § 710. Losee v. Bissell, 76 Pa. 459. 7. Crosby v. Grant, 36 N. H. 273. 8. Southern Sand, etc., Co. v. People's Bank, etc., Co., 101 Ark. 266, 142 SW 178; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 Ill. 136, 60 NE 907, 85 AmSR 246. [a] For example, the removal of a letter of protest attached to check. 514 [8 C. J.] BILLS AND notes tice, nor is a variance between the amount of the 9. Merritt v. Boyden, 191 Ill. 136, 60 NE 907, 85 AmSR 246 [aff 93 Ill. A. 613]. [a] The marginal figures placed above and outside the body of a note are not a part of the note itself, so that their alteration will necessarily deprive a purchaser thereof of his character of a bona fide holder. Merritt v. Boyden, 191 Ill. 136, 60 NE 907, 85 AmSR 246 [aff 93 I11. A. 613]. 10. Central Nat. Bank v. Pipkin, But see Henderson v. 66 Mo. A. 592. Bondurant, 39 Mo. 369, 93 AmD 281 (holding a person put on inquiry as to the authority of the person offering the note to fill the blank with a larger sum). Bank v. 11. U. S.-Pittsburgh Neal, 22 How. 96, 16 L. ed. 323 [appr Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. 343, 15 L. ed. 934; U. S. v. Metropolis Bank, 15 Pet. 377, 10 L. ed. 774; Fowler v. Brantly, 14 Pet. 318, 10 L. ed. 473; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65, 10 L. ed. 61]. Cal.-Woolf v. Clarke, 17 Cal. A. 696, 121 P 407. Ga. Citizens' Bank v. Greene, 12 Ga. A. 49, 76 SE 795. V. Ida.-Burdell v. Nereson, 152 P 576. were V. [c] Two indorsements upon a note on notice that it was procured withwere held insufficient to put plaintiff or through misBurdell v. out consideration representation or fraud. [d] The initials "C. I. P." standNereson, (Ida.) 152 P 576. their no notice whatever of ing unexplained on the face of a note gave that the consideration was a patent meaning, much less did they show right, viz., "Chapin Iron Process.' Chattanooga First Nat. Bank v. Stockell, 92 Tenn. 252, 21 SW 523, 20 LRA 605. [e] Where a bill was torn in two and thrown away with intent to destroy it, but the tear was in such manner that it might be inferred that mission the more ready through the it had been done to render its transpost, and it was subsequently pasted under such circumtogether and negotiated, the holder might infer, stances, that the breaking or tearing had been done for a lawful purpose and could not as a matter of law be charged with notice that it was for the purpose of destroying the bill. Ingham v. Primrose, 7 C. B. N. S. 82, 97 ECL 82, 141 Reprint 745. gests an equity or defense, and then only notice of the equity suggested. Thus, a guaranty added to So the an indorsement is not notice of defenses.12 fact that certain blanks in a note were filled in in a different handwriting does not as a matter of law give an indorsee notice of alteration after delivery.13 described as," etc., which ap- inquire into the circumstances under "second of expeared on the back of a negotiable which the note was made. Gibson v. note, is not notice to purchasers of Coates, (Man.) 1 WestLR 556. [b] The words not imthe note of infirmities of the paper, Knight v. Finney, 59 change, first unpaid,” did (5) The fact port to the purchasers of one of such if any exist. Nebr. 274, 80 NW 912. Pittsburg Bank that a note is signed by "the Crowell bills knowledge that the bills & Class Cold Storage Company, by drawn in sets. is not Neal, 22 How. (U. S.) 96, 16 L. ed. 323 Charles H. Newell, Treas.," sufficient to put an indorsee for value [appr Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. before maturity on inquiry which (U. S.) 343, 15 L. ed. 934; Fowler v. would lead to the discovery that the Brantly, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 318, 10 L. ed. New York Nat. Exch. 65, 10 L. ed. 61]. maker is a corporation, and not a 473; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. (U. S.) partnership. Bank v. Crowell, 177 Pa. 313, 35 A 613. (6) The facts that a draft drawn by a western bank on its New York correspondent, which has funds to the credit of the drawer in excess of the amount of the draft, is drawn on a blank intended for the use of the payee bank, and was dated at the place where the payee bank was located, and in another state, are not sufficient to put the drawee bank on inquiry. Mt. Vernon First Nat. Bank v. New York Nat. Bank, 192 Fed. 546, (7) A note marked 113 CCA 18. "renewable," and indorsed to a bona such transferee fide transferee before its maturity does not prevent from being a holder in due course because of his failure to make inwhere the quiries to ascertain the title of the transferor, particularly note was originally given as "bankable paper" with power of discountJ. C. Pennoyer Co. v. Wiling it. liams Mach. Co., 34 Ont. L. 493, 24 DomLR 607, 8 OntWn 279, 9 OntWN 84. (8) A bank purchased spurious notes from the president of a savings bank, who was its chief executive officer, and intrusted with the negoThe tiation of commercial paper. N. Y.-Nassau Trust Co. v. Mather-numbers on the notes were irregular, those of the later being smaller than son, 113 App. Div. 693, 100 NYS 55; Hathaway v. Delaware County, 103 those of an earlier date, and there was a marked similarity among the App. Div. 179, 93 NYS 436 [mod 185 N. Y. 368, 78 NE 153, 113 AmSR 909, signatures; but the notes were re13 LRANS 273]; Mindlin v. Appel- ceived at different times, and the off--Where a note is made payable at cers of the purchasing bank knew baum, 62 Misc. 300, 114 NYS 908. Oh.-Allen v. Johnson, 20 Oh. Cir. nothing of the signatures of the persons whose names purported to be Ct. 8, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 42. Pa. New York Nat. Exch. Bank v. attached, nor of the system of numbering them, and had no reason to Crowell, 177 Pa. 313, 35 A 613. First Nat. suspect any irregularity. It was held Tenn.-Chattanooga Bank v. Stockell, 92 Tenn. 252, 21 SW that the condition of the paper was not sufficient to put the purchaser on State [h] The mere fact that a note has 523, 20 LRA 605. Wis.-Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. inquiry as to its genuineness. v. Corning Sav. Bank, 139 Iowa 338, not the stamp (1) required by statute 110, 30 AmR 697. 115 NW 937. (9) An ex-county treas- at the time of its delivery, such irurer, fraudulently pretending to act regularity not being noticed by the as a representative of the county purchaser at the time of receiving it, is not of itself sufficient to charge Ebert v. Gitt, treasurer, represented that the county wished to borrow money, and pro- him with notice of equities between (2) That a Man.-Gibson v. Coates, 1 WestLR cured a draft from bankers payable the original parties. to the county treasurer, which the 95 Md. 186, 52 A 900. The fact latter in good faith, supposing that note was that of a farmer, and that [a] Illustrations.—(1). dis- another than the maker, whose inthat the transferee received a note the ex-treasurer was the owner there- the revenue stamp was canceled by just before maturity showing an ex- of, received and accepted in It was held that signee on notice of any defenses of cessive rate of interest on its face charge of a shortage in the ex-treas-itials were used, did not put the asMartindale v. Stotler, 80 was held not to put him upon inquiry urer's accounts. as to equities between the maker and the county was not chargeable with the maker. Woolf v. Clarke, 17 Cal. A. knowledge of any irregularity in the Kan. 87, 101 P 629. payee. 696, 121 P 407. (2) A person taking procurement of the draft from the a note as collateral from one of the fact that it was made payable dimakers is not put on inquiry as to rectly to the county treasurer, and an agreement limiting its use, by was entitled to retain, as against the the fact that it is made payable to bankers, the proceeds of the draft when collected by the treasurer from him. American Exch. Nat. Bank v. (3) the drawee. Hathaway v. Delaware Ulm, 21 Mont. 440, 54 P 563. A clause in a negotiable note to the County, 103 App. Div. 179, 93 NYS 436 effect that if it was not paid at ma- [mod 185 N. Y. 368, 78 NE 153, 113 turity it should bear twelve per cent AmSR 909, 13 LRANS 273]. (10) An interest from date would not charge indorsement on the back of a note a bona fide holder for value before "I hereby agree to leave this note and anything he does with maturity with notice of usury in the with. Parker v. Ply- same will be satisfactory to me," is inception of the note. (4) The state- not to be read as a restrictive inmell, 23 Kan. 402. ment, "This note is secured by a dorsement, nor as anything suspicious contract on land in Douglas county which would require a purchaser to Mont.-American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Ulm, 21 Mont. 440, 54 P 563. Nebr.-Knight v. Finney, 59 Nebr. 274, 80 NW 912. Eng.-Ingham v. Primrose, 7 C. B. 556. [f] Erasure of rubber stamp was not sufficient to put one upon notice. Nassau Trust Co. v. Matherson, 113 App. Div. 693, 100 NYS 55. [g] Alternative place of payment. either of two places, the fact that the purchaser knows of, or believes in, the nonexistence of one of the places named for payment is not sufficient to put him on inquiry if he purchases for value or before maFarthing v. Dark, 111 N. C. turity. 243, 16 SE 337. [i] A reservation in a note of title to property described therein does not put a purchaser for value Citizens' Bank v. Greene, and before maturity on notice of any 12 Ga. A. 49, 76 SE 795. defense. 12. Cover v. Myers, 75 Md. 406, 23 A 850, 32 AmSR 394; Elgin City Banking Co. v. Hall, 119 Tenn. 548, 108 SW 1068. 13. John Kindler Co. v. Fond du Lac First Nat. Bank, (Ind. A.) 109 NE 66. [a] This may be an evidentiary fact, however, for the consideration of the jury as to the good faith of the holder. John Kindler Co. v. Fond For later cases, developments and changes in the law see cumulative Annotations, same title, page and note number. But a holder for value is not a holder in due course where he purchases a note in which the name of the payee is left blank, if he makes no inquiries, since he is put upon inquiry as to the authority of the transferor.14 [§ 722] (2) Expression of Fiduciary Relationship. The expression of a holder's or a transferor's fiduciary character on the face of a negotiable instrument is notice to the purchaser of a probable du Lac First Nat. Bank, (Ind. A.) 109 NE 66. 14. Stone v. Sargent, 220 Mass. 445, 107 NE 1014 (holding that, where the maker of a note delivered it in an incomplete condition, with the name of the payee left blank, to one who transferred it still incomplete to the holder, the latter is chargeable with notice that the instrument was not completed in accordance with authority, as provided for in the Negotiable Instruments Law, since it was not completed at all); Munroe v. Stanley, 220 Mass. 438, 107 NE 1012; Tower v. Stanley, 220 Mass. 429, 107 NE 1010. [a] In Massachusetts under Rev. L. c 73 31, defendant is charged with notice of an agent's authority to fill in blanks in notes and an assignment given as collateral; hence the assignor may deny that the collateral should be held for the amounts of the notes as raised by such agent. Munroe v. Stanley, 220 Mass. 438, 107 NE 1012. 15. U. S.-Thurber v. Cecil Nat. Bank, 52 Fed. 513; Lee v. Chillicothe Branch Bank, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,186, 1 Bond 387. Ark.-Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 45 SW 370, 67 AmSR 919. Cal. Carrillo v. McPhillips, 55 Cal. 130. D. C.-Jackson v. Davis, 11 D. C. 334. 640. Mich.-McBain Seligman, 58 130 N. Y Gerard v. McCormick, Eng.-Bryant V. La Banque du [a] Illustrations.—(1) The purchaser of notes of the receiver of a corporation signed, "Zielian, Receiver," and indorsed by him personally, took them with constructive notice of the receiver's want of authority to issue them, so that the corporation was not liable thereon. Zielian v. Baltimore Plate Ice Co., 115 Md. 658, 81 A 22. (2) One buying a note signed with the name of a corporation, as by the president, followed by the name of an individual, to which is attached "Sec'y & Treas.," is put on notice. that such words were not intended merely as a description, but that the signature was intended to be official. Capital Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Swan, 100 Iowa 718, 69 NW 1065. [b] Extent of inquiry required. Such a signature imposes on the purchaser, however, no further obIll.ligation than to inquire whether the agent has the authority to bind the principal by signing bills in such manner and does not require of him any inquiry into the consideration of the bill. Weeks v. Fox, 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 354. Ill.-McConnell v. Hodson, 7 Ky-Mitchell v. Reed, 106 SW 833, 835, 33 KyL 683 [quot Cyc]. La.-Nicholson V. Jacobs, 2 La. Ann. 666; Nicholson v. Chapman, 1 La. Ann. 222. Md.-Baltimore Third Nat. Bank v. Lange, 51 Md. 138, 34 AmR 304. Mass.-National Security Bank v. McDonald, 127 Mass. 82. Minn.-Elias v. Finnegan, 37 Minn. 144, 33 NW 330. Mo.-Renshaw v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Payne v. St. Charles First Nat. Bank, 43 Mo. A. 377. Nebr. Rapid City First Nat. Bank v. Security Nat. Bank, 34 Nebr. 71, 51 NW 305, 33 AmSR 618, 15 LRA 386. N. Y.-Peo. v. Bank of North America, 75 N. Y. 547. [c] In England, the effect of the W. Va.-Hazeltine v. Keenan, 54 W. Va. 603, 46 SE 609, 102 AmSR 953. [a] illustrations.—(1) Persons who accept, as security from a probate judge in his private capacity, notes which show upon their face [a] Illustration.-A note was paythat they were held in his public ca- able to "J. F. Sears, Treas., or his pacity, are not bona fide purchasers successor," and was secured by a thereof without notice. Freeman v. mortgage naming the obligee as "J. Bailey, 50 S. C. 241, 27 SE 686. (2) F. Sears, Treas., or his successor in A bank which received a check pay-office, of the W." (naming a corporaable to the treasurer of a town was tion). S who took the note and chargeable with notice that the check mortgage as treasurer of the corporawas the property of the town and tion had no authority to transfer that the treasurer had no power to them, but did so, taking in part conindorse it for circulation. Quincy sideration a discharge of a personal Mut. F. Ins. Co. V. International indebtedness. It was held that the Trust Co., 217 Mass. 370, 104 NE 845, purchaser took no title, inasmuch as LRA1915B 725 and note. the note, the mortgage, and the circumstances were sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry as to the title of S. Wisconsin Yearly Meeting, etc. v. Babler, 115 Wis. 289, 91 NW 678. 18. Ill-Henshaw v. State Bank, 239 Ill. 515, 88 NE 214, 130 AmSR 241. 16. U. S.-Germania Safety-Vault. etc., Co. v. Boynton, 71 Fed. 797, 19 CCA 118. Iowa.-Capital Sav. Bank, etc., Co. V. Swan, 100 Iowa 718, 69 NW 1065. Md.-Zielian v. Baltimore Plant Ice Co., 115 Md. 658, 81 A 22. La.-State v. Jahraus, 117 La. 286, 41 S 575, 116 AmSR 208. Mo.-Turner v. Hoyle, 95 Mo. 337, 8 SW 157. N. Y.-Cohnfeld v. Tanenbaum, 176 N. Y. 126, 68 NE 141, 98 AmSR 653 [rev 58 App. Div. 310, 68 NYS 1023]. Oh.-Rowekamp v. Holters, 6 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 998, 9 AmLRec 416. Wis.-Wisconsin Yearly Meeting, etc. v. Babler, 115 Wis. 289, 91 NW 678. [a] A deed of trust, an order of the court, or any other instrument accompanying the note is just as efficient and potent to impart notice to all those who see it or to those to whom it is delivered as if its terms had been written on the face or embodied in the instrument itself. Turner v. Hoyle, 95 Mo. 337, 8 SW 157; Renshaw v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Ranney v. Brooks, 20 Mo. 105. 19. U. S.-Pierce v. U. S., 7 Wall. 666, 19 L. ed. 169, Ala.-Wolffe v. State, 79 Ala. 201, 58 AmR 590. 500. Ark.-Payne v. Flournoy, 29 Ark. D. C.-Jackson v. Davis, 11 D. C. 334. Il-Chicago Title, etc., Co. V. Brugger, 196 Ill. 96, 63 NE 637 [aff 95 III. A. 405]; Henshaw v. Christian, 143 Ill. A. 558; Lang v. Metzger, 86 III. A. 117. Ind.-Nugent v. Laduke, 87 Ind. 482; Rogers v. Zook, 86 Ind. 237. Ky.-Taylor v. Harris, 164 Ky. 654, 176 SW 168; Hill v. Fleming, 128 Ky. 201, 107 SW 764, 32 KyL 1065, 16 AnnCas 840; Prather v. Weissiger, 10 Bush 117. La. McMasters v. Dunbar, 2 La. Ann. 577; Nicholson v. Chapman, 1 La. Ann. 222. Md.-Baltimore Third Nat. Bank v. Mass.-Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. Mo.-Turner v. Hoyle, 95 Mo. 337, 8 SW 157; Renshaw v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Ranney v. Brooks, 20 Mo. 105; Galloway v. Gleason, 61 Mo. A. 21; Payne v. St. Charles First Nat. Bank, 43 Mo. A. 377. N. Y.-Peo. v. Bank of North America, 75 N. Y. 547; Empire State Surety Co. v. Nelson, 141 App. Div. 850, 126 NYS 453; Paterson First Nat. Bank V. National Broadway Bank, 22 App. Div. 24, 47 NYS 880; New York v. Sands, 39 Hun 519. 87. Oh.-Strong v. Strauss, 40 Oh. St. Tenn.-Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 42 SW 149, 63 AmSR 830, 38 LRA 837; Alexander v. Alderson, 7 Baxt. 403. Tex.-U. S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Adoue, 104 Tex. 379, 137 SW 648, 138 SW 383, 37 LRANS 409, AnnCas1914 B 667. Vt.-Langdon v. Baxter Nat. Bank, 57 Vt. 1, 52 AmR 113. "A number of reputable authorities take the position that the words 'trustee,' 'agent,' 'collector,' or 'guardian,' when accompanying the signature of a party, are to be considered as mere descriptio personæ, and are insufficient to give notice of a trust relation. . . Other cases hold that such words alone are not sufficient to give notice that a breach of trust is about to be committed, and that it is necessary for the purchaser to . 516 [8 C. J.] BILLS AND NOTES and indorsed by, a certain person with the word "If there are circumstances connected with the purchase which reasonably indicate that trust property is being dealt with, they will fix on the purchaser notice of the trust, and if he fails to make inquiry about the title he is getting, it is his own fault and he must suffer the consequences of his own neglect." Baltimore Third Nat. Bank v. Lange, 51 Md. 138, 144, 34 AmR 304. 20. Baltimore Third Nat. Bank v. Lange, 51 Md. 138, 34 AmR 304; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 97 AmD 107, 1 AmR 115; Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 42 SW See 149, 63 AmSR 830, 38 LRA 837. also Duckett v. National Mechanics' Bank, 86 Md. 400, 402, 38 A 983, 63 AmSR 513, 39 LRA 84 (where a bank credited to the personal account of Clagett who was trustee of an estate check deposited the proceeds of a therein, issued in payment of a debt due such estate, in these words, "Pay to the order of James Scott, cashier, $2,000.00, two thousand dollars, for deposit to credit of Henry W. Clagett, being the balance of purchase money due him as trustee from John R. Coale," and Clagett drew the money from the bank and embezzled it, and it was held that the bank was not liable to the estate on the theory that it knowingly participated in the breach of trust, since it credited the proceeds as directed in the check). "The rules of law are presumed to be known by all men; and they must govern themselves accordingly. The law holds that the insertion of the word 'trustee' after the name of a stockholder does indicate and give No one is at libnotice of a trust. erty to disregard such notice and to abstain from inquiry for the reason that a trust is frequently simulated or pretended when it really does not exist." Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 393, 97 AmD 107, 1 AmR 115. sence phrase descriptive of the person, such terms should be considered as descriptio personæ and will not constitute notice to the purchaser of a probable limited authority to make the transfer.24 The mere [§ 723] (3) Postdated Instrument. fact that an instrument was postdated and transferred before its date is not of itself sufficient to charge a purchaser with notice of an irregularity or defense,25 although this has been considered as a suspicious circumstance which, with other circumstances, should put a purchaser on inquiry.26 27 [ 724] (4) Restrictive Indorsement. Notice of defenses or equities may be imputed to a purchaser by his taking a note having a restrictive or special although this is not true indorsement thereon, where the note is acquired after the special indorseon inon inwas again presented with the indorse- sufficient to put a purchaser .. Land sonal obligation of C M S, or his obment of the brother's name followed quiry whether the note was the perIt by the words, "Trustee of Fourth was quiry as to the real consideration of Stubbs v. Macon Trust." The bank without further in-ligation as administrator, or the indorsement charged the note. quiry took the certificate. 25. Ind.-Johnson v. Harrison, 177 held that the bank with notice of the title of Nat. Bank, 12 Ga. A. 539, 77 SE 893. the owners. Henshaw v. State Bank, 239 Ill. 515, 88 NE 214, 130 AmSR Ind. 240, 250, 97 NE 930, 39 LRANS 1207 [cit Cycl. Louisville First Ky. Hackett v. Nat. Bank, 114 Ky. 193, 70 SW 664, 241. 24 KyL 1002. 21. Ford v. Brown, 114 Tenn. 467, U. S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. [b] Checks signed by "Special 23. Hazeltine v. Keenan, 54 W. Va. First Denton Bank v. Kenney, [a] The word "trustee," (1) added [a] In Missouri the addition of to a payee's name in a written instrument, is sufficient to put the pur- the word "sheriff" (1) after the name chaser on inquiry as to all the terms of the payee of a promissory note and conditions under which it may has been held to be merely descriphave been executed, and in the ab- tive of the person of the payee and of such inquiry, knowledge indorser, and therefore an indorsee McLeod v. for value, in good faith, and before thereof will be presumed. such description. a trust by Despain, 49 Or. 536, 90 P 492, 497, 92 maturity, is not charged with notice P 1088, 124 AmSR 1066, 19 LRANS of Fletcher v. Schaumburg, 41 Mo. 501; (2) 276. (2) A certificate stating that an individual had made advances to be Powell v. Morrison, 35 Mo. 244. refunded on certain conditions was But where there is something addiindorsed by the individual and pre- tional to put the indorsee on inquiry, sented to a bank by a third person of course the rule is modified. who stated that the certificate had shaw v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Ranney v. was note signed, That a [b] been given to his brother. The presi- Brooks, 20 Mo. 105. dent of the bank stated that the indorsement of the brother was neces- "Claude M. Stubbs, administrator of the certificate the estate of F. B. Stubbs," was not sary. Ren Mass.-Symonds v. Riley, 188 Mass. 470, 74 NE 926; Bill v. Stewart, 156 Mass. 508, 31 NE 386. N. Y.-Mayer v. Mode, 14 Hun 155; Albert v. Hoffman, 64 Misc. 87, 117 NYS 1043; Brewster v. McCardell, 8 Wend. 478. See Clarke Nat. Bank ♥. Albion Bank, 52 Barb. 592 (where the court used language from which the opposite might be inferred, although the case itself was decided on different grounds). Or.-Triphonoff v. Sweeney, 65 Or. Pa Pa.-McSparran v. Neely, 91 299, 130 P 979. Eng.-Pasmore v. North, 13 East 17; Walker v. Geisse, 4 Whart. 252, 33 AmD 60. 26. New York Iron Mine v. Citi517, 104 Reprint 471. 27. U. S.-Chicago First Nat. Bank zens' Bank, 44 Mich. 344, 6 NW 823. v. Reno County Bank, 3 Fed. 257, 1 V. Lee Chillicothe 491; 8,187, 1 Biss. 325. V. Jefferson McCrary Ala.-People's Bank Branch State Bank, 15 F. Cas. No. County Sav. Bank, 106 Ala. 524, 17 S 728, 54 AmSR 59. Conn.-Bristol Knife Co. v. Hartford First Nat. Bank, 41 .Conn. 421, 19 AmR 517. Ill. Haskell v. Brown, 65 Ill. 29. Ky.-Menzies v. Farmers Bank, 3 KyL 822. an Me.-Leary v. Blanchard, 48 Me. indorsement, 269 (holding that "Pay to Arthur Leary, or order, for to put a purchaser on inquiry). account" of the payee, was sufficient Mass.-Wilson v. Holmes, 5 Mass. an indorsement to the payee's own 543, 4 AmD 75 (holding that, under use, the purchaser would take subject to defenses); Ayer v. Hutchins, Mich. Aniba v. Yeomans, 39 Mich. 4 Mass. 370, 3 AmD 232. 171 (holding that the indorsee is not a bona fide holder without notice where the payee transferred only his right, title, and interest). N. H.-Pierce v. Ricker, 16 N. H ment "to be accountable without de322, 41 AmD 728 (holding an indorsemand and notice"). N. Y.-Boyd v. Plumb, 7 Wend. 309; Payne v. Eden, 3 Cai. 213; Reed v. Warner, 5 Paige 650. R. I.-Blaine v. Bourne, 11 R. L 119, 23 AmR 429. Va.-Power v. Finnie, 4 Call. (8 Va.) 411 (where the restricted intents to Jack Power only"). dorsement was, "pay the within con later ment has served the purpose for which it was made.28 The fact that a note is specially indorsed to a certain bank does not put a prospective purchaser on inquiry as to the authority of an officer of the bank to pledge it by way of collateral security.29 An indorsement for collection," or in words of similar import, is notice to all parties subsequently dealing with the paper that a qualified title only is intended to be passed." 30 An indorsement "without recourse," or an expression of the same import, is not of itself sufficient to put a purchaser on inquiry and to constitute constructive notice to him,31 and this is true under the Negotiable Instruments Law.32 Such an indorsement is not out of the usual course of trade.33 But where such indorsement is used, it should be made in strict compliance with the technical rules of commercial law,34 and such an indorsement may, with other circumstances, tend to show that the note was not indorsed for value.3 35 ger is not sufficient of itself to show bad faith,36 although it has been said that no purchaser should buy paper from an entire stranger without using reasonable caution and making proper inquiry.37 While from the very nature of the function which negotiable paper performs this circumstance alone is not notice of fraud or irregularity, it should, with other circumstances, be considered in determining the good faith of the purchaser,38 as where the paper is bought at a large discount and inquiry could be made of the maker with reasonable diligence. 39 [ 726] g. Occupation or Reputation of Transferor or Maker. Inasmuch as commercial paper circulates on the same plane as money and hence may legitimately find its way into the hands of almost any one, it follows that the occupation or profession of the transferor is not of itself sufficient to put the purchaser on inquiry concerning the validity of the consideration or other defenses to the paper, or to amount to mala fides on his part in taking it without inquiry.40 Hence the fact that it is negotiated La.-Maurin v. Chambers, 6 Rob. | chaser on inquiry. Ayer v. Hutchins, 4 Mass. 370, 3 AmD 232. See also Richardson V. Lincoln, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 201 (where the note was indorsed long after it was due). [725] f. Purchase from Stranger. The fact that a bill or note is received from an entire stranWis. Pier v. Bullis, 48 Wis. 429, 4| NW 381. Eng. Sigourney v. Lloyd, 8 B. & C. 622, 15 ECL 308, 108 Reprint 1174, 4 ERC 353; Treuttel V. Barandon, 8 Taunt. 100, 4 ECL 59, 129 Reprint 320. Brook v. Vannest, 58 N. J. L. 162. 73 A 382. 29. Cox v. Canadian Bank of Commerce, 21 Man. 1. 30. U. S.-Metropolis Bank v. Jersey City First Nat. Bank, 19 Fed. 28. 301. Ga.-Wilson v. Tolson, 79 Ga. 137, 3 SE 900; Central R. Co. v. Lynchburg First Nat. Bank, 73 Ga. 383. Iowa.-Chaflin v. Wilson, 51 Iowa 15, 50 NW 578. Md.-Cecil Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 22 Md. 148. Minn. Merchants' Nat. Bank V. Hanson, 33 Minn. 40, 21 NW 849, 53 AmR 5. Miss. Meridian First Nat. Bank v. Strauss, 66 Miss. 479, 6 S 232, 14 AmSR 579. Mo.-Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Bank of Commerce, 107 Mo. 402, 17 SW 982, 15 LRA 102. Nebr.-Lederer v. Union Sav. Bank, 52 Nebr. 133, 71 NW 954; Hastings First Nat. Bank v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 2 Nebr. (Unoff.) 104, 95 NW 1062. N. Y.-Philbrick v. Dallett, 34 N. Y. Super. 370; Hoffman v. Miller, 22 N. Y. Super. 334. See also Bank of America v. Waydell, 187 N. Y. 115, 79 NE 857 (where a draft payable to the order of a banker was in fact delivered to him for the purpose of collection only, and was remitted, with a general indorsement, to plaintiff, accompanied, however, by a letter stating that it was sent for collection and credit, and before it became due plaintiff was notified that the banker did not own it and that authority to collect had been revoked). 62. Mass.-Goddard v. Lyman, 14 Pick. 268. See also Bassett v. Daniels, 136 Mass. 547 (holding that, where the payee of a mortgage note for future advances, after assigning his "interest" in the mortgage and the note to a fictitious person and indorsing the note in blank without recourse, sold the note and the mortgage and delivered to the purchaser what purported to be an assignment from the fictitious person to the purchaser, who acted in good faith and without notice that the note was given for future advances, the maker could not redeem from the mortgage without paying the full amount of the note, although the advances made did not equal such amount). Mich.-Borden v. Clark, 26 Mich. 410. Minn. Collins V. McDowell, 32. Elgin City Banking Co. V. Hall, 119 Tenn. 548, 108 SW 1068; Leavitt v. Thurston, 38 Utah 351, 356, 113 P 77 [quot Cycl; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 101 NW 417, 107 AmSR 1003, 68 LRA 146. 33. Evans v. Speer Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 45 SW 370, 67 AmSR 919; Beach v. Bennett, 16 Colo. A. 459, 66 P 567. "An indorsement without recourse is not out of the due course of trade. The security continues negotiable, notwithstanding such an indorsement. Nor does such an indorsement indicate, in any case, that the parties to it are conscious of any defect in the security, or that the indorsee does 65 not take it on the credit of the other party or parties to the note. On the contrary, he takes it solely on their credit, and the indorser only shows thereby that he is unwilling to make himself responsible for the payment." Neely v. Black, 80 Ark. 212, 218, 96 SW 984. Mo.-Mayes v. Robinson, 93 Mo. 114, 5 SW 611. N. Y.-Russel v. Ball, 2 Johns. 50 Tenn.-Elgin City Banking Co. v. Va.-Lomax v. Picot, 2 Rand. (23 W. Va.-Dollar Sav., etc., Co. v. Wis.-Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110, 30 AmR 697. [a] Transfer, by indorsement, of "right and title" of the indorser is equivalent to an indorsement without recourse. Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C. 61, 54 SE 847. [b] Additional circumstances.Where an indorser of certain notes to plaintiff as collateral, on plaintiff's proposing to transfer the notes to another, requested and was granted permission to write the words "without recourse" over his indorsement, to relieve him from personal liability in event the transfer was consummated, the restriction of the indorsement by the writing of such words did not charge plaintiff with notice of possible defenses and equities of the maker against the notes. American Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Helgesen, 64 Wash. 54, 116 P 837, AnnCas1913A 390. N. D.-National Bank of Commerce v. Johnson, 6 N. D. 180, 69 NW 49. Or.-Smith v. Bayer, 46 Or. 143, 79 P 497, 114 AmSR 858. Tex-Gregory V. Sturgis Nat. Bank, (Civ. A.) 71 SW 66. But see Mills v. Philbin, 3 RevLeg 255 (where an indorsee and holder of a note for the purpose of collection is held to be a holder in due course). 31. U. S.-Hamilton v. Fowler, 99 Fed. 18, 40 CCA 47. Ark.-Neely v. Black, 80 Ark. 212, 96 SW 984. Colo.-Beach v. Bennett, 16 Colo. A. 459, 66 P 567. Ill-Stevenson v. O'Neal, 71 Ill. [c] But an indorsement of this sort, made eight months after the Ind.-Judy v. Warne, 54 Ind. A. 82, note was due, was held in a former 102 NE 386. case to be sufficient to put the pur 314. 34. Hatch v. Barrett, 34 Kan. 223, 8 P 129. 35. Richardson v. Lincoln, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 201. 36. Pennington County Bank V. Moorhead First State Bank, 110 Minn. 263, 125 NW 119, 136 AmSR 496, 26 LRANS 849 (check taken by bank); Unaka Nat. Bank v. Butler, 113 Tenn. 574, 83 SW 655. To same effect Hallock v. Young, 72 N. H. 416, 57 A 236. 37. Smith V. Mechanics', etc., Bank, 6 La. Ann. 610. To same effect Wickersham Banking Co. v. Nicholas, 2 Cal. A. 18, 82 P 1124. 38. Pelletier v. State Nat. Bank, 114 La. 174, 38 S 132; Hallock v. Young, 72 N. H. 416, 57 A 236; Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank v. Ohio Valley Furniture Co., 57 W. Va. 625, 630, 50 SE 880, 70 LRA 312 [cit Cyc]. 39. Ill. Auten v. Gruner, 90 Ill. 300; Sims v. Bice, 67 Ill. 88; Taylor v. Atchison, 54 Ill. 196, 5 AmR 118. Mo.-Whaley v. Neill, 44 Mo. A. 316. N. Y.-Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 N. Y. 191, 25 NE 402, 10 LRA 676 [rev 4 NYS 262]. N. C.-Loftin v. Hill, 131 N. C. 105, 42 SE 548. Vt.-Gould v. Stevens, 43 Vt. 125, 5 AmR 265. See also supra § 717. 40. U. S.-Mitchell v. Catchings, 23 Fed. 710. D. C.-Hutchins V. Langley, 27 App. 234. Ill.-Shreeves v. Allen, 79 Ill. 553; |