GWYN VS. LEE. 445

CHARLES R. GWYN AND JOHN R. GWYN

vs. JULT TERM, 1849.
JOSIAH LEE ET AL.

[BOLDER OF PROMISSORY NOTES—USURY.]

A bonafidt holder of a negotiable instrument for a valuable consideration, with-
out notice of facts which effect its validity as between antecedent parties, if
he takes it by indorsement before it becomes due, acquires a valid title, and
may recover upon it, though, as between the antecedent parties, the trans-
action may be invalid.

The holder of such paper before it is due, is not bound to prove that he is a
banajide holder for a valuable consideration without notice; for the law will
presume this, in the absence of rebutting proof.

If the want, or failure, or illegality of the consideration has been established,
or if it be shown that the note was lost, or stolen, before it came into the
possession of the holder, it is then incumbent on him to show that he has
given value for it.

Since the act of 1845, ch. 352, usurious instruments are not, under any circum-
stances, avoided, but are made valid securities in all courts, no matter by
whom proceedings may be instituted upon them, to the extent of the princi-
pal sum, and six per cent. interest.

[In his opinion, in this case, in which the facts are fully stated,
the Chancellor says :]

THE CHANCELLOR :

This case though not very important with reference to the
amount involved in its decision, is yet not destitute of interest
to the commercial community.

It appears that some time in the month of April, 1848, the
complainants, trading under the firm of Gwyn & Company,
placed in the hands of George Baughman, of the firm of Baugh-
man, Nicholson and Cannon, their promissory note for $1227 33,
made payable to the last named firm, dated the 9th of that
month, and payable eight months after date, and, as the Com-
plainants allege, the note so made and delivered by them to
Baughman, was made and delivered upon the offer and agree-
ment of Baughman to, procure the same to be discounted for
their use at some bank in Baltimore.
VOL i—38