| N.Y. Sup. Ct. | Nov 15, 1806
delivered the opinion of the court. Though there be cases in which, after the negotiation of a promissory note, a maker will be let into proof of its having been fraudulently obtained, none have gone so far as to admit of this defence, where .the passing was prior to its becoming due, unless the noté, being payable to bearer, is transferred by delivery only, and that too under suspicious circumstances. If made payable to order, it is, perhaps, never necessary for the indorsee to prove that he gave value for it; nor has the maker been permitted to go into its real consideration, unless it be such as to render it void by statute, or unless it had become due before it was transferred. Now although the plaintiff here has shown no consideration, the in-dorsement imports one ; and no circumstances are to be discovered in the transaction to justify the application of a rule, which in securities intended to pass as cash, cannot be too much restricted. If a man carelessly, or by imposition, gives a negotiable note, it is better that he should pay it, than to allow him, on light grounds, to shake the title of a third person. The payee’s qualified indorsement, or his declaration, that he did not know on what consideration it was made, cannot impair tbe 3ndorsee’s right acquired under his transfer. The not#
Judgment for the plaintiff.