The fact that the consideration is recited on the face of the note,1 or on the back thereof,2 or is known to the holder,3 especially if the maker of the notes tells the purchaser that they are valid obligations,4 is not notice of any defenses arising by reason of failure of the consideration, unless the holder knows that the consideration has failed,5 or must fail.6

L. R. A. 609, 20 N. E. 193; Freeman's National Bank v. Tube Works Co., 151 Mass. 413, 21 Am. St. Rep. 461, 8 L. R. A. 42, 24 N. E. 779.

New York. National, etc., Bank v. Hubbell, 117 N. Y. 384, 15 Am. St. Rep. 515, 7 L. R. A. 852, 22 N. E. 1031.

Ohio. National Bank v. Bank, 58 O. S. 207, 65 Am. St. Rep. 748, 41 L. R. A. 584, 50 N. E. 723.

2 Cussen v. Brandt, 97 Va. 1, 75 Am. St. Rep. 762, 32 S. E. 791.

3 United States National Bank v. Geer, 55 Neb. 462, 70 Am. St. Rep. 390, 41 L. R. A. 444, 75 N. W. 1088.

4 Ditch v. Bank, 79 Md. 192, 47 Am. St. Rep. 375, 23 L. R. A. 164, 29 Atl. 72, 138. (Decided by a divided court.)

5 United States. Hamilton v. Fowler, 99 Fed. 18, 40 C. C. A. 47.

Arkansas. Evans v. Hardware Co., 65 Ark. 204, 67 Am. St. Rep. 919, 45 S. W. 370.

Illinois. Stevenson v. ONeal, 71 111. 314.

Iowa. Higby v. Bahrenfuss, 180 Ia. 316, 163 N. W. 247.

Michigan. Borden v. Clark, 26 Mich. 410.

Nebraska. First National Bank v. Bank, 34 Neb. 71, 33 Am. St. Rep. 618, 15 L. R. A. 386, 51 N. W. 305.

Pennsylvania. Bisbing v. Graham, 14 Pa. St. 14, 53 Am. Dec. 510.

See also, Mee v. Carlson, 22 S. D. 365, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 351, 117 N. W. 1033.

1 Bank v. Barrett, 38 Ga. 126, 95 Am. Dec. 384; Hardin v. Bank, 145 Ga. 494, 89 S. E. 613; Siegel v. Bank, 131 111. 569, 19 Am. St. Rep. 51, 7 L. R. A. 537, 23 N. E. 417; Heard v. Bank, 8 Neb. 10, 30 Am. Rep. 811; Brannin v. Richardson, 108 Tex. 112, 185 S. W. 562.

2 Snelling State Bank v. Clasen, 132 Minn. 404, 157 N. W. 643.

3 Arizona. Phoenix Safety Investment Co. v. Michaels, - Ariz. - , 176 Pac. 587.

California. Pezzoni v. Greenwell, - Gal. - , 174 Pac. 60.

Georgia. McManus v. Cash Grocery Co., 143 Ga. 623, 85 S. E. 858.

Illinois. Siegel v. Bank, 131 111. 569, 19 Am. St. Rep. 51, 7 L. R. A. 537, 23 N. E. 417.

Iowa. McNight v. Parsons, 136 Ia. 390 [sub nomine, McKnight v. Parson, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 718, 113 N. W. 8581.

Michigan. Miller v. Ottaway, 81 Mich. 196, 21 Am. St. Rep. 513, 8 L. R. A. 428, 45 N. W. 665.

Missouri. Jennings v. Todd, 118 Mo. 296, 40 Am. St. Rep. 373, 24 S. W. 148.

Montana. Baker State Bank v. Grant, 54 Mont. 7, 166 Pac. 27.

Nebraska. Rublee v. Davis, 33 Neb. 779, 29 Am. St. Rep. 509, 51 N. W. 135; Nebraska National Bank v. Pen-nock, 55 Neb. 188, 75 N. W. 554.

New York. Davis v. McGready, 17 N. Y. 230, 72 Am. Dec. 461; Trades-

The fact that the transferee knows that the note is given upon an executory consideration, does not prevent him from being a bona fide holder if he does not know that such executory consideration has failed or that it will fail.7 If the transferee takes the note, together with the contract under which it was given as security therefor, the transferee is said not to be a bona fide purchaser.8One who has taken part in selling realty can not be a bona fide holder of an instrument given for such realty, if the consideration therefor fails.9 One who knows that a note is given for a patent right, takes subject to all defenses by reason of failure of such consideration under a statute which requires all such notes to recite that they were "given for a patent right," although such words do not appear upon the instrument.10