1. The rule placing the burden of proof on the holder obtains where there is fraud in the inception of the note.

[See note on this question beginning on page 18.]

Bills and notes-holder in due course.

2. The purchaser of a negotiable instrument, in order to be a holder in due course, must come within the requirements of § 4102, Rev. Laws 1910, defining such holder.

[See 3 R. C. L. 1031.] - knowledge of agent

effect.

3. Where, at the time a note was negotiated to the holder, his attorney, acting for and representing him in the particular transaction, had actual knowledge of an infirmity in the note, such knowledge will be imputed to the holder as though the facts were made known to him in person. In such case the principal is chargeable with notice of all such facts as come to his agent's knowledge while acting within the scope of his agency.

[See 3 R. C. L. 1069.] -defect in chain of title.

4. When it is shown that the title

Headnotes by SHARP, J.

18 A.L.R.-1.

of any person who has negotiated a negotiable instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course, except as otherwise provided in § 4109, Rev. Laws 1910.

[See 3 R. C. L. 1033, 1038 et seq.1 Appeal instructions 5. Instructions placing the burden of proving knowledge of infirmity in a negotiable instrument upon the defendant, except in the class of cases provided for in the latter part of § 4109, Rev. Laws 1910, constitute reversible error. Such instructions relieve the plaintiff holder of making proof of a fact necessary to a recovery, and impose upon the defendant maker the additional duty of establishing to the jury's satisfaction a fact not necessary to his defense.