Defendant practically failed to introduce any evidence tending to support his contention. He did testify that the club was not functioning as it was organized to function, but did identify the Cascade Country Club as the payee in the note and W. H. Emrick as its president. It also appeared from the answer that W. H. Emrick and G. B. Campbell were incorporators of the country club. There was testimony that the notes were assigned to said *126 Q. B. Campbell in payment for property for the club. There is a presumption that the indorsements on the note are genuine: Or. L., § 7816. This presumption has not been overcome. There are also presumptions that things in the possession of a person are owned by him; that a person is owner of property from exercising acts of ownership over it; that a promissory note or bill of exchange was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration: Or. L., § 799, subds. 11, 12, 21.
These presumptions are not disputed by any testimony offered by defendant. The fact that the article “the” appears in the body of the note in one place does not, in our judgment, indicate that “The Cascade Country Club” is a different person from “Cascade Country Club” which also appears in the body of the note and is the name used by the payee in indorsing the note; nor does the abbreviation “Inc.” following the name in the indorsement indicate that “Cascade Country Club, Inc.” in the indorsement is other than the same person “Cascade Country Club” appearing in the body of the note. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the indorser is not the same person as the payee. There is no merit in defendant’s contention that there should have been further proof of the identity of the president or evidence of his authority to indorse the note. The indorsement of a corporation is sufficient to pass title notwithstanding the incapacity of the corporation to incur the liability of indorser: Or. L., §7814 The name of the corporation in the indorsement is the same as the name of the payee. Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the presumption: “Identity of person from identity of name.” Or. L., § 799, subd. 25.
Defendant also contends that the plaintiff failed to introduce the indorsements on the note. We think *127 this contention is without merit. Plaintiff offered the note, after identifying it, and the indorsements on it. Defendant objected to receiving the note in evidence, basing his objections on lack of identification of the indorsers. The objection made by defendant, as well as the colloquy between the attorneys for the parties and the court, clearly shows that all of the parties had in mind at the time the note was offered, the indorsements as well, and it was so received and treated.
We have carefully examined the records and considered the authorities submitted by appellant. We are of the opinion that plaintiff is the holder in due course of the note and defendant was not entitled to the defense attempted to be pleaded by him.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.