One who is in possession of a negotiable instrument which has been delivered to him if payable to bearer or which has been indorsed to him, or which is indorsed generally, is presumed to be a bona fide holder thereof for value, without notice, and before maturity.1 If, however, defenses are shown which could have been interposed against the original payee and the holder of the instrument is seeking to avoid the force of such defense by invoking his standing as bona fide holder, it is held that he is bound to show affirmatively that he took for value without notice and before maturity, by a transfer which passed the legal title. Thus if the contract is voidable by reason of fraud, the holder must show that he is a bona fide holder.2 He must show that he paid value for the instrument,8 and that he did not know of the defenses interposed.4 Similar principles apply where it is shown that the note was originally obtained by duress.6 So if the instrument is shown to have been given without consideration and fraudulently transferred by the payee,6 or on an illegal consideration,7 the burden is on the holder. It has been held that if the holder shows that he gave value for the instrument and took it before maturity, it will be presumed that he had no notice of defenses.8 The weight of authority seems to be that if the defect in the instrument is merely want of consideration or failure of consideration without any element of fraud, the burden is not on the holder to show that he is a bona fide holder,9 though there is authority even in this case for holding that the burden is on the holder.10

9 Way v. Lamb, 15 Ia. 79; Cutler v. Cook, 77 Mo. 388; Chander v. Drew, 6 N. H. 469; 26 Am. Dec. 704; Haley v. Congdon, 56 Vt. 65.

10 Favorite v. Lord, 35 I11. 142; Sargent v. Southgate, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 312; 16 Am. Dec. 409; Galliher v. Galliher, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 23.

11 Davis v. Noll, 38 W. Va. 66; 45 Am. St. Rep. 841; 17 S. E. 791.

1Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. (U. S.) 343; Yates v. Spofford, 7 Ida. 737; 97 Am. St. Rep. 267; 65 Pac. 501; Cook v. Norwood, 106 I11. 558; Benton County Savings Bank v. Boddicker, 105 Ia. 548; 67 Am. St. Rep. 310; 45 L. R. A. 321; 75 N. W. 632; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan.

526; 78 Am. St. Rep. 337; 49 L. R. A. 190; 60 Pac. 327; Alexander v. Bank, 2 Met. (Ky.) 534; Pettee v. Prout, 3 Gray (Mass.) 502; 63 Am. Dec. 778; Vastine v. Wilding, 45 Mo. 89; 100 Am. Dec. 347; Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 372; 45 Pac. 560; Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58; 88 Am. St. Rep. 640; 62 N. E. 1079; Davis v. Bartlett, 12 O. S. 534; 80 Am. Dec. 375; Third National Bank v. Angell. 18 R. I. 1; 29 Atl. 500; Voorhees v. Fisher, 9 Utah 303; 34 Pac. 64.

2 Brook v. Teague, 52 Kan. 119; 34 Pac. 347; Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373: 18 Am. Pep. 192; The Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite, 124 Mo. 34; 46 Am. St. Rep. 424;

26 L. R. A. 568; 27 S. W. 397; Thamling v. Duffey, 14 Mont. 567; 43 Am. St. Rep. 658; 37 Pac. 363; Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357; 16 Am. St. Rep. 836; 23 N. E. 801.

3 Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357; 16 Am. St. Rep. 836; 23 N. E. 801.

4 Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373; 18 Am. Rep. 192; Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357; 16 Am. St. Rep. 836; 23 N. E. 801.

5 French v. Paving Co., 100 Mich. 443; 59 N. W. 166.

6 Williams v. Huntington, 68 Md.

590; 6 Am. St. Rep. 477; 13 Atl. 336.

7 Emerson v. Burns, 114 Mass. 348.

8 Market, etc., Bank v. Sargent, 85 Me. 349; 35 Am. St. Rep. 376; 27 Atl. 192; Henry v. Sneed, 99 Mo. 407; 17 Am. St. Rep. 580; 12 S. W. 663.

9 Yates v. Spofford, 7 Ida. 737; 97 Am. St. Rep. 267; 65 Pac. 501; Shirk v. Mitchell, 137 Ind. 185; 36 N. E. 850; Little v. Mills, 98 Mich. 423; 57 N. W. 266; Kelman v. Calhoun, 43 Neb. 157; 61 N. W. 615.

10 Blaney v. Pelton, 60 Vt. 275; 13 Atl. 564.