
    Union Adams, plaintiff vs. John S. Blancan and Louis H. Rosey, defendants.
    1. Where one buys a negotiable promissory note, before maturity, on the representation of the holder that it is genuine, and without any reason to suspect the truth of such representation, his right to recover is perfect, and cannot be affected by a conversation between his vendor and the makers of the note, of which he had no knowledge, previous to his purchase.
    2. Hence it is not erroneous to direct a verdict for the plaintiff, in such a case, although there is contradictory evidence touching such conversation between the holder and makers.
    (Before Robertson, Ch. J., and Barbour and Garvin, JJ.)
    Heard October 27, 1868;
    decided December 31, 1868.
    
      Action upon a promissory note for $750, made by tbe defendants for the accommodation of the payee, and discounted by the plaintiff.
    
      Z. W. Butcher, for the plaintiff.
    
      John B. Fogarty, for the defendants.
   By the Court, Barbour, J.

This case comes before us upon exceptions, directed to be heard here in the first instance and for judgment.

The action is brought upon a promissory note for $750, alleged to have been made by the defendants, payable to the order of C. L. Derby, and indorsed by him. The case shows that the defendants made the note for the accommodation of Derby, and that the latter indorsed the same and placed it in the hands of one Van Aernam, with instructions to get it discounted for him, (Derby.) After that, but before the note became due, Charles E. Battelle called upon the plaintiff with the note and requested him to buy it, but he refused to do so unless he could be satisfied that the signature was genuine. Battelle then went.out, and after being gone some minutes, returned and informed the plaintiff that he had seen one of the makers of the note and had been told by him that it was genuine and would be paid; and, thereupon, the plaintiff bought and paid for it.

■ Upon the trial, Battelle testified that when he left the plaintiff, .as above mentioned, he went to one of the defendants and asked him if the note was “ all right,” and that the latter answered that it was, and would be paid at maturity. Another witness, (Clark,) in giving an account of that conversation, stated that the reply of the defendant was that he gave the note to accommodate Derby, and he supposed Derby would take it up, but that he, (the defendant,) would not do so, as it was not a business note.

The judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which the defendants’ counsel excepted; and the only point raised by him here is that such direction was erroneous, inasmuch as there was contradictory testimony touching the conversation between Battelle and the defendant.

The objection is, clearly, untenable. The plaintiff bought the negotiable promissory note in question, before the same was due, on the representation of the then holder that it was genuine, and having no reason, so far as the testimony shows, to suspect the truth of the statements so made to him. His right to recover, therefore, was perfect, and could in no manner be affected by a conversation between his vendor and the makers of the note, of which he had no knowledge previous to his purchase ; whether such conversation was correctly stated by Battelle or by Clark, or by neither.

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment upon the verdict, with costs.

Robertson, Ch. J.

The promissory note sued upon in this case, although signed with the name of the firm of the defendants by one of them, (Blancan,) was not made in their business, but entirely for the accommodation of Derby, to be used by him to raise money upon for his own use. After he placed it in the hands of Van Aernam, to get it discounted for him, a Mr. Battelle received it from a Mr. Mc-Allister, (a lawyer,) to whom he afterwards gave the check he got. for it, and the latter handed it to a Mr. Polhemius, who drew the money for it. Battelle testified that Polhemius told him that he took it from Van Aernam for a debt he owed him. If this was true, no title to the note was acquired until it came into the hands of the plaintiff as a Iona fide purchaser; if he had notice of the misappropriation by Van Aernam of the note to pay a debt of his own, he was not such a bona fide purchaser. A witness (Clark) testified that when Battelle asked the defendant Blancan as to the genuineness of the note, and whether it would be paid, the latter said “ there was some trick of somebody, * * it was some trick of Derby getting the note of him; * * he . said Mr. Derly was swindled out of it, or something of that kind,” and also “ that it was not a business note,” or of the firm. This possibly would have been enough to put the plaintiff on inquiry as to the title to the note, and the liability of both partners for it, and relieved the defendants (or at least the defendant Eosey) from responsibility, if Battelle was the plaintiff’s agent. But he testifies himself that he was agent for the' seller of the note and the plaintiff only authorized him to ascertain if the note was genuine, and would be paid; whatever else therefore was said to him, beyond the genuineness of the note, was not notice to the plaintiff, of the facts communicated, and he took the note, without notice tending to impair the title of the holder of it, thereto.

I concur, therefore, in thinking that judgment should be rendered for the amount of the verdict, and the exceptions •overruled.  