Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/39

 BANK OP SHERMAN ». APPERSON. 25 �any error of judgment by the doîendant, the plaintiff is l)y no means blameless. �There must, therefore, be a judgment for the defendant, upon the facts found by the court, which the clerk is hereby directed to enter. ���Bank dp Sherman v, E. M. Appbrson & Co. �{Circuit Court, W. S. Tennessee. October 13, 1880.) �1. NEGOTiABiyB Notes— Reciting Considebation— Payable to as Aiv �MnnsTiiATOB. — Neither the fact that a note is payable to an adminis- trator, nor that it recites that it was for value received, " being for a part of the third payment on the Goree plantation, as per agreement of the fourteenth February, 1874," destroys ils negotiability, or sub- jects it to the jconditions of that agreement. �2. NbgotiabiiB Notes — Omission op thb Word8"ob ordbb." — It is �well-settled that aoaote omitting the words " or order," is not negotia- ble unless it contains othcr words of like import; but this has been changed in Tennesse by statute, and neither those nor any equivalent words are necessary. �8. CoMMERCiAi, Law— Statb Statutes— Whkn BiKDiNa.— While no decision or statute of a state restricting or impairing the rights and remedies secured to the citizen s of the several states under the general commercial law, or divesting the federal courts of their cognizance of those rights and remedies, is binding on those courts, statutes which tmkifrge the commercial law will be enforced. Tbey are not conûned to the commercial law as it exists outside such statutes. �4. Negotiablb Noms— Bona Fidk Holdbr fob Value Nothing less �than actual knowîedge of the fants relied on to establish the defence of a failure of consideration, or bad faith, can defeat the right of a Jojia fde holder for value to recover on a negotiable note. Mere knowledge of suspicious circumstances, which, if followed up by inquiry, would dcvelop the facts, is not sufflcient in the federal courts, although the rule is otherwise in Tennessee. The facts in this case would not, it seems, defeat the recovery in the Tennessee state courts ; certainly not in this court, �T. B. Mkon, for plaintiff. �Myers e Sneed, for defendants. �Hammond, D. J. On motion for a new trial. tJpon fuU consideration of the arguments made upon this motion, I am satisfied with the rulings I made upon the demurrer and at ����