Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/42

 28 FEDERAL REPORTER. �cient, and nothîng tending to show bad faitb on its part, and if the jury had found otherwise I should, without the least hesitation, have set aside the verdict and granted a new trial ; therefore, no error was committed in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Orleans y. Platt, 99 U. S. 676. I was the more ■wiUing to do this, because, although the resuit wonld have been the same, no matter how well founded the defences may have been, I allowed the proof upon the issues to be taken, and was satisfied that if the original payee himself had been suing there was absolutely iio defence to the suit in a court of law, bowever it may have been in a court of equity, on a bill for specifie performance or a bill to rescind the contract. I shall not undertake to show the correctness of that 02)iuion, because, strictly, it is not properly in judgment, the pîaintiff being entitled to recover as a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of any equities in favor of the makers of the note. 1 should also have mentioned that, even if the con- tract for the land refei-red to in the note had been before the bank, it could have safely, in my opinion, have taken this note. �The facts on which the supposed defects of title and other defences rest were, at that time, unknown even to the de- fendants themselves. The land contract contained a stipu- lation that the purchase money was not to be paid until cer- tain deeds were executed. Those deeds had been executed, and after their receipt the defendants paid ail the money due, and executed this note and others for the purchase money not due in satisfaction of, and for the purpose of, closing up the agreement about the land. The supposed defects in the deeds, the mistakes in them, and their alleged worthlessness to convey the title were afterwards discovered ; indeed, they were discovered after the pledge of this note to the bank. This demonstrates that, at the time this note was negotiated, the defendants themselves had no knowledge of the facts con- stituting their defences. �I corne now to çonsider a new question, raised since tiie aiotion for a new trial was submitted, and ne ver before re- ferred to by counsel or dctected by the court. The note sued on reads as follows : ����