
    Edward H. Reynolds v. Emeline Kent.
    
      Non-ownership of note.
    
    Non-ownership of a note at the time suit was brought on it is a fuli defense and can be shown under the general issue.
    Error to Allegan.
    Submitted and decided January 24.
    Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
    
      Bronson Schoonmaker for plaintiff in error.
    The possessor of a note is presumed to have a right to sue on it, Austin v. Birchard, 31 Vt., 589; Aldrich v. Warren, 16 Me., 465; Munroe v. Cooper, 5 Pick., 412; Wheeler 
      
      v. Guild, 20 Pick., 545, and the fact that he does not own it, cannot be shown by the defense, Way v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 412.
   Campbell, C. J.

The only question in thi3 case is whether the court below erred in admitting evidence under the general issue that the plaintiff below did not own the note sued on when suit was brought. The note was payable to bearer.

It was decided in Hovey v. Sebring, 24 Mich., 232, that such a defense would defeat the action, and we can conceive no reason why it does not go to a direct denial of the allegations in the declaration averring ownership and contract relations between the parties. It is not matter in avoidance, and goes to the very foundation of the action.

The judgment below must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  