426 



"VVAGERS. 



Taking a 

 stolen Bank 

 Note in pay- 

 ment. 



Taking stop- 

 ped Note in 

 payment. 



Wliat invali- 

 dates the 

 holder's 

 right. 



Mala Jill es 

 must be dis- 

 tinctly 

 proved. 



wliether the giver binds himself by the indorsement so as 

 to make himself liable thereupon to the person to whom 

 he gives it. There is no decision that he does, and there 

 is a strong authority the other way ; and the prevailing 

 opinion in the profession is, that a parol promise of a gift, 

 whether verbal or in writing, will not be binding." 



A Race Cburse is a mart where stolen or lost Notes may 

 be readily disposed of, and therefore a party should always 

 use due caution in taking a Bank Note from a stranger, 

 either in pajonent of a Bet, or in change out of payment 

 for Bds lost, and the larger the amomit of the Note the 

 greater the care required. 



A loud fide holder of a stopped note, or other negotiable 

 secimty, that is to say, a person who has giv^en value for 

 it, and who has had no notice at the time that the party 

 from whom he takes it has no title, is entitled to recover 

 upon it, even although he may at the time have had the 

 means of knowledge of that fact, of which means he neg- 

 lected to avail liimself. Thus, where a money-changer at 

 Paris, twelve months after he had received notice of a 

 robbery of bank-notes at Liverpool, took one of the stolen 

 notes (for 500/.) at Paris, giving cash for it, less the cur- 

 rent rate of exchange, from a stranger, whom he merely 

 required to produce his passport, and Tvaite his name on 

 the back of the note, it was held that the circumstance of 

 his forgetting or omitting to look for the notice was no 

 evidence of mala fides {[/). 



In Goodman v. Harvey (h), the Court of Queen's Bench 

 held that there must be actual mala fides to invalidate the 

 right of the holder of a Bill or Bank Note, received from 

 a person having no title to it. And also that the existence 

 even of gross negligence was unimpoi*tant, except so far as 

 it might be evidence of mala fides {//). 



This decision was confirmed by the case of Ufl/er v. 

 liich (/), where the Com't of Queen's Bench held that mala 

 fides in the holder of a negotiable security, if relied on, 

 must be distinctly alleged. And that the only proper 

 way of implicating him in an alleged fraud, is by averring 

 that he had Notiee of it, and that an allegation that he was 

 not a houd fide holder, is not equivalent to an averment of 

 such Notice. 



(ff) JiapJiael v. Hank of JEtigland, 

 17 C. B. 161. 



(/*) Goodman v. Ilorvcy, 4 A. & 

 E. 870. 



(;) Uther V. Rich, 10 A. & E. 

 784 ; and sec Arboin v. Anderson, 

 1 Q. B. 498. 



