Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/19

WAYNESVILLB NAT. BANK V. IRONS. - 5 �sixth defence, in reference to which a ruling bas already been made excluding testimony offered in its support, and which is not, theie- fore, open to any further consideration. �The answers of the other defendants, except in one partidular, in respect to which it is not neeessary to refer you, contain substantially, if not literally, the same defences which I have just enumerated as oontained in Mr. Irons answer. And without referring to them by number, inasmuch as the same defences seem to be reiterated several times in different forms, I will state in the first place that the defence of these gentlemen rests upon a deniai of the title of the plaintiff to this note, based upon the want of authority alleged to exisl on the part of Mr. Sellers to make the transfer, and of Mr. Wright to make the negotiation, and a deniai of tho fact that the company, through any of its officers, assented to the arrangement whereby the plaintiff became the owner of the note. In respect to that I give you this charge : That if the title of the plaintiff, so far as it depends upon the question of indorsement and delivery, and the authorit j-' of Wright to bind the railway company in its negotiations, is sufficient as against the railway company, it ia equally valid as against the other defendants. �And the further question is whether the legal title to the note, which was in the railway company, passed by the acts done in its name to the plaintiff. The note having been indorsed in blank by the treasurer of the railway company, the title would thereafter pass by mere delivery, and would be sufScient in the hands of a honafide holder, for value paid, receiving the same before due in the ordinary course of business, without any notice of want of authority or other defect of title in the party transferring its possession. In other words, if this note, being indorsed in blank by the treasurer, was found in the possession of Israel Wright on a certain day before its maturity, and was by him presented for discount to the bank, and the bank discounted it and paid to him the proceeds of it, without any notice that Wright had no authority, and without notice that the railway company was not assenting to the transaction, and without notice of any other facts which. would constitute a defect in the authority of either the treasurer or the agent representing himself to bf duch, then the plaintiff is what in law is termed a honafide holder, lor value, prior to maturity, without notice of defect. And it would make no difference whether Wright had found the paper somewhere or had stolen it, or had possession of it in any other way; bis deliv- ery of it under these circumstances would have vested the plaintiff ��� �