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, certain 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.2 These rules are carried into the Negotiable Instruments Law, which provides: "Every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as holder in due course. But the last-mentioned rule does not apply in favor of a party who became bound on the instrument prior to the acquisition of such defective title." 3 The title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective within the meaning of this act when he obtained the instrument, or any signature thereto, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.4

28 White v. Wadhams, - Mich. - , 170 N. W. 60.

29Tobin v. McKinney, 15 6. D. 257, 88 N. W. 572 [affirming, 14 S. D. 52, 84 N. W. 228].

30 Miles v. Dodson, 102 Ark. 422, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 83, 144 8. W. 908.

31 First National Bank v. John Mc-Grath & Sons Co., 1ll Miss. 872, 72 So. 701.

32 Way v. Lamb, 15 Ia. 79; Cutler v. Cook, 77 Mo. 388; Chandler v. Drew, 6 N. H. 469 26 Am. Dec. 704; Haley v. Congdon, 56 Vt. 66.

33 Illinois. Favorite v. Lord, 35 111. 142.

Massachusetts. Sargent v. South-gate, 22 Mass. (6 Pick.) 312, 16 Am. Dec. 409.

Minnesota. Gould v. Svendsgaard, - Minn. - , 170 N. W. 595.

Oklahoma. Curlee v. Ruland, 56 Okla. 329, 155 Pac. 1182.

Tennessee. Galliher v. Galliher, 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 23.

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

1 England. King v. Milsom, 2 Campbell 5.

United States. Goodman v. Simonds, 61 U. S. (20 How.) 343, 15 L. ed. 934; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529, 27 L. ed. 424.

Connecticut. Parsons v. Utica Cement Co., 82 Conn. 333, 135 Am. St. Rep. 278, 73 Atl. 785.

Idaho. Yates v. Spofford, 7 Ida. 737, 97 Am. St Rep. 267, 65 Pac. 601.

If the instrument is voidable by reason of fraud, the holder must show that he is a bona fide holder.5 He must show that he paid value for the instrument,6 and that he did not know of the defenses interposed.7 Similar principles apply where it is shown that the note was originally obtained by duress.8So if the instrument is shown to have been given without consideration and fraudulently transferred by the payee,9or on an illegal consideration,10 or if it is shown that the instrument is usurious,11 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.12

Illinois. Cook v. Norwood, 106 111. 558.

Iowa. Benton County Savings Bank v. Boddicker, 105 Ia. 548, 67 Am. St. Rep. 310, 45 L. R. A. 321, 75 N. W. 632.

Kansas. Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526, 78 Am. St. Rep. 337, 4ft L. R. A 190, 60 Pac. 327.

Kentucky. Alexander v. Bank, 59 Ky. (2 Met.) 534; United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Henry Vogt Machine Co., - Ky. - 206 S. W. 806.

Massachusetts. Pettee v. Prout, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 502, 63 Am. Dec. 778.

Missouri. Vastine v. Wilding, 45 Mo. 89, 100 Am. Dec. 347.

Montana. Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 372. 45 Pac. 560.

Nebraska. Haslach v. Wolf, 73 Neb. 658, 103 N. W. 317.

New York. Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58, 88 Am. St. Rep. 640, 62 N. E. 1079.

Ohio. Davis v. Bartlett, 12 O. S. 534, 80 Am. Dec. 375.

Oklahoma. First National Bank v. Walker, 39 Okla. 620, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1115, 136 Pac. 408.

Rhode Island. Third National Bank v. Angell, 18 R. I. 1, 29 Atl. 500.

Utah. Voorhees v. Fisher, 9 Utah 303, 34 Pac. 64.

Wisconsin. Gutwilling v. Stumes, 47 Wis. 428, 2 N. W. 774.

2 Tucker v. Fouts, - Fla. - , L. R. A. 1917F, 916, 76 So. 130; Cochran v. Stein, 118 Minn. 323, 41 L. R A. (N.S.) 391, 136 N. W. 1037.

3 Section 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

4 Section 55 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

5 Iowa. McNight v. Parsons, 136 Ia. 390 [sub nomine, McKnight v. Parsons, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 718, 113 N. W. 868].

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,13 though there is some authority even in this case for holding that the burden is on the holder.14

Kansas. Brook v. Teague, 52 Kan. 119, 34 Pac. 347.

Michigan. Carrier v. Cameron, 31 Mich. 373, 18 Am. Rep. 192.

Minnesota. Cochran v. Stein, 118 Minn. 323, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 391, 136 N. W. 1037.

Missouri. The Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite, 124 Mo. 34, 46 Am. St Rep. 424, 26 L. R. A. 668, 27 S. W. 397.

Montana. Thamling v. Duflfey, 14 Mont. 567, 43 Am. St. Rep. 658, 37 Pac 363.

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

Tennessee. National Bank v. Chat-field, 118 Tenn. 481, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 101 S. W. 765.

This result is reached under the Negotiable Instruments Law. McNight v. Parsons, 136 Ia. 390 [sub nomine, McKnight v. Parsons, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 718, 113 N. W. 858]; Lundean v. Hamilton, - Ia. - . 169 N. W. 208.

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

7 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.

8 French v. Paving Co., 100 Mich. 443, 69 N. W. 166.

9 Williams v. Huntington, 68 Md. 590, 6 Am. St. Rep. 477, 13 Atl. 336.

10 United States. Marion County v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278, 24 L. ed. 59.

California. Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 159, 119 Am. St. Rep. 164, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 568, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 609, 88 Pac 708.

Massachusetts. Emerson v. Burns, 114 Mass. 348.

Oregon. Matlock v. Scheuerman, 51 Or. 49, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 747, 93 Pac. 823.

Tennessee. National Bank of Commerce v. Chatfield, 118 Tenn. 481, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 101 S. W. 765.

11 Tucker v. Fouts, - Fla. - , L. R. A. 1917F, 916, 76 So. 130; Daniels v. Bunch, - Okla. - , 172 Pac. 1086.

Contra, where the usury does not appear on the face of the instrument. Haynes v. Gay, 37 Wash. 230, 79 Pac 794.

12 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.

13 United States. Goetz v. Kansas City Bank, 119 U. S. 551, 30 L. ed. 515.

Idaho. Yates v. Spofford, 7 Ida.

737, 97 Am. St. Rep. 267, 65 Pac. 501.

Indiana. Shirk v. Mitchell, 137 Ind. 185, 36 N. E. 850.

Michigan. Little v. Mills, 08 Mich. 423, 57 N. W. 26C.

Nebraska. Kelman v. Calhoun, 43 Neb. 157, 61 N. W. 615.

Missouri. Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380, 130 S. W. 673.

14 Mercantile Guaranty Co. v. Hilton, 191 Mass. 141, 77 N. E. 312; Blaney v. Pelton, 60 Vt. 275, 13 AtL 564.