BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 375

4. That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any
infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negoti-
ating it.

Where the plaintiff takes a note with knowledge of the insolvency of the corpora-
tion which made it, and that it was issued by the company in part payment for
its own capital stock (which the law prohibits it from buying), he is not a holder in
due course. Burke v. Smith, 111 Md. 627.

A check held to be complete and regular on its face, and that the endorsee took
it without knowledge of such facts as made his taking it amount to bad faith—
see sec. 75. Weant v. Southern Trust Co., 112 Md. 471.

Where notes are purchased before maturity in good faith -and for value, with-
out notice of any infirmity in the notes, or defect in the title of the seller, the
purchaser may recover on the notes. No evidence that contract was resorted to
to conceal usurious loan. Dolph v. Stubblefield, 135 Md. 156.

This section referred to in construing secs. 14 and 138—see notes thereto. James-
son v. Citizens Bank, 130 Md. 85.

See notes to sec. 78.

An. Code, sec. 72. 1904, sec. 72. 1898, ch. 119.

72. Where an instrument payable on demand is negotiated an unrea
sonable length of time after its issue, the holder is not deemed a holder
in due course.

An. Code, sec. 73. 1904, sec. 73. 1898, ch. 119.

73. Where the transferee receives notice of any infirmity in the in-
strument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same before
he has paid the full amount agreed to be paid therefor, he will be deemed
a holder in due course only to the extent of the amount theretofore paid
by him.

An. Code, sec. 74. 1904, sec. 74. 1898, ch. 119.

74. The title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective
within the meaning of this act, when he obtained the instrument, or any
signature thereto, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful
means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach
of faith, or under such circumstances as amounts to a fraud.

Title to note obtained by fraud, defective under this section—see notes to
sec. 78. Edelen v. First Natl. Bank, 139 Md. 417.

Where the plaintiff takes a note with knowledge of the insolvency of the corpora-
tion which made it, and that it was issued by the company in part payment for its
own capital stock (which the law prohibits it from buying), he is not a holder in
due course. Burke v. Smith, 111 Md. 627.
See notes to sec. 78.

An. Code, sec. 75. 1904, sec. 75. 1898, ch. 119.

75. To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in
the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is nego-
tiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowl-
edge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to
bad faith.

In a suit by the endorsee against the maker, pleas setting up fraud and breach
of faith in the negotiation of a note, are bad unless they allege that the plaintiff
took the note with a knowledge of the fraud or breach of faith. Black v. Bank of
Westminster, 96 Md. 416.

This section applied. Instructions held contradictory. Valley Savings Bank v.
Mercer, 97 Md. 479. See also Weant v. Southern Trust Co., 112 Md. 471; Cover v
Myers, 75 Md. 418; Wilson v. Kelso, 115 Md. 173.
See notes to secs. 71 and 78.