
    HAGAN vs. CALDWELL ET AL.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      May, 1840.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    The holder of a negotiable note endorsed in blank, who possesses it in good faith and gave for it. a good consideration, cannot be affected by any failure of consideration between the parties to it and the original endorsee or holder.
    This is an action against the maker and endorser of a promissory note, given for the price of a lot, and secured by mortgage on the premises.
    The defendants deny generally and especially that Johu Hagan is the bona fide holder, he having received it after protest, but that it was given to Richard Hagan, as vendor, in part payment of the price of a lot., which he purchased from John Slidell, in whose favor there existed a mortgage on said lot, to secure the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars, which Richard Hagan bound himself to raise, but which he failed to do, and that the consideration had failed. They called their vendee in warranty to defend.
    The holder of a negotiable note endorsed in blank, who possesses it in good faith, and gave for it a good consideration, cannot be affected by any failure of considerationbetweentheparties to it, and the original endorsee or holder.
    The plaintiff proved his right to hold and sue on the note, having paid and received it from the Merchants’ Bank, where it was discounted, in consequence of his responsibility for the paper of Hagan, Niven & Co. From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff took up this note in the regular course of business, which was negotiable in its form.
    There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant, Caldwell, appealed.
    
      Jones, for the plaintiff.
    
      Macready, for the defendant.
   Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is brought on a promissory note which, having been discounted in the Merchants’ Bank, was taken up and' paid by the plaintiff, after protest, in consequence of arrangements made with the bank in relation to the paper on which the names of Hagan, Niven & Co., appeared. Defendants admit their signatures, but plead that the consideration of the note has failed ; they also allege, that the plaintiff is not the owner and holder of the note sued on, which in fact belongs to Richard Hagan, and was given in consideration of the price of a lot of ground on which there was a mortgage at the time of the sale, and which has been seized and sold, subsequently, at the suit of the mortgage creditor.

The defence set up, which goes to show a failure of consideration, would perhaps be successful, if the note really belonged to Richard Hagan ; but as against the plaintiff, we think it is entirely unsupported by the evidence, and is, therefore, unavailable. He appears to be the holder of the note in good faith; to have given a good consideration for it; and jn oul- opinion, he is entitled to recover.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  