
    TAYLOR et al. v. CRIBB.
    Submitted November 30,
    Decided December 17, 1896.
    'Certiorari. Before Judge Sweat. Appling superior court. January 24, 1896.
    Suit was Brought upon a promissory note. The evidence for plaintiff was to the effect that he traded for the note before it -became due; and without any notice whatever of •dishonor or defense. Evidence for the defendants tended "to- show that 'the note was obtained from defendants by fraudulent representations, not of the holder of the note. ’There w’as a verdict for defendants. By certiorari plaintiff .allege^ that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; that the court erred in admitting any evidence going to show that the consideration of the note had failed, and in allowing defendants’ witnesses to- testify to hearsay. The certiorari was. sustained and a finding for plaintiff directed. Defendants excepted.
    
      iCr. J. Holton. Sow, for plaintiffs in error.
   Simmons, C. J.

1. The bona fide holder for value of a negotiable promissory note who acquired title thereto before its maturity is entitled to enforce its collection against the maker, although the latter may have been induced to sign the note by means of false and fraudulent representations made by the original payee in the transaction which led to the giving of the note. Grooms v. Olliff, 93 Ga. 789.

2. The court was right in sustaining the certiorari, and there was no error in ordering a new trial in the magistrate’s court and in effect directing that upon the same state of facts there should be a finding in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affii'med.  