
    8892
    COMMERCE TRUST CO. v. GRIMES ET AL.
    
    (82 S. E. 420.)
    Negotiable Instruments. Innocent Holder. Direction op Verdict.
    The undisputed testimony showing that plaintiff is a bona fide holder and assignee for value before maturity of negotiable notes, and there being no evidence to show that he had notice of any want of consideration, a verdict should have been directed in his favor in action on such notes.
    Before Bowman, J., Walterboro; November, 1913.
    Reversed.
    
      Action by Commerce Trust Company against M. L. .Grimes, W. E. Carr, B. L. Cox, W. H. Cox, J. P. Gay, H. H. Butler and- Thomas. Southwell. Prom judgment fo»r defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. Smythe & Visanska, for appellant,
    cite: Case governed by pi S. C. 455, 8o S. B. 460. The circumstance that one of the McLaughlin Bros, was a stockholder in plain*tiff company is immaterial: 26 S. W. 975, 977; 10 Cyc. 1061; 74 S. C. 368, 374. As to bonafides: See 1 Pac. 789; 19 S. E. 561; 92 N. W. 348; 106 N. W. 942; 142 N. W. 139; 129 Pac. 798; 47 N. E. 196; 26 S. W. 975; 24 Atl. 356.
    
      Messrs. Howell & Gruber and Peurifoy Bros., for respondents,
    cite: As to burden of proof: 91 S. C. 455. As to what circumstances are sufficient to put a purchaser of negotiable paper on inquiry: 44 L.-R. A. (N. S.) 395, 399, and note.
    
    July 17, 1914.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Eraser.

This is another action on a note given by persons in this State to McLaughlin Bros.

The undisputed evidence showed that the respondents executed negotiable notes to1 McLaughlin. Bros. That the notes were assigned for value before maturity to the appellant and there is no evidence to show that the assignee had notice of any want of consideration.

This case is governed by the case of The Bank v. Wallace, 97 S. C. 52, 80 S. E. 460; and The Bank v. Stackhouse, 91 S. C. 455, 74 S. E. 977, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454.

In the former case the Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of this Court, said:

“When the case of Bank v. Stackhouse, 91 S. C. 455, 74 S. E. 977, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, was decided by this Court, it did not seem to. the writer of -this opinion that the plaintiff therein, was prima facie a bona fide holder of the ■note upon which the action was brought.

The principles then announced are practically the same as those involved in the present case. ITe, therefore, feels constrained to1 follow that case as an authority as long' as it remains, of force.”

This Court is bound by those two1 opinions to' reverse the judgment in this case. A verdict for the plaintiff in this case should have been directed. No. other questions arise.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.  