LAKNINa V. liOOEETX. 451 �LaNNIUG V. LOOKETT.* �{Oirmit Court, S. D. Gewgia,W. D. January 24, 1882.) �1 Pleadihg— Plka in Bar. �A plea denying tltle of plaintifl in a suit on a promissory note, and alleging that the note is the property of a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought, and not the property of the piaintiil, although pleaded here in the form and Btyle of a plea to the jurisdiction, is, in reality, a plea in bar. �2. 8ame — Statb Lawb. �Such a plea is not demurrable, although flled, without any other plea, in the United States circuit court held in a state, the statute of which provides that a party cannot inquire into the title of a holder of a note except for his protec- tion or to let in some defence. �3. Pkomissobt Notes— Atjthorttt of Cashibr to Indorse— Presttmptioii. �In the absence of proof of any regulations curbing or restricting his authority, the presumption is that the indorsement of a negotiable promissory note, belonging to the bank, by the cashier, was authorized, and such indorsement passes the title to the note. �4. COLIiATBBAXi SBO0EITT — RiGHT OF HoLDER TO BUB. �The bona fide indorsee of a negotiable promissory note, who takes it as col- lateral security for a pre-existing debt, is a holder for a valuable consideration, and may maintain suit thereon in the United States courts ; and the right to sue is not invalidated by the fact that the note was transferred to such indorsee (a citizen of another state) for the purpose of enabling him to sue thereon in the United States courts. �Suit by plaintiff against defendant, B. G. Lockett, on a promissory note for $6,000. It was payable to order of Maeon Bank & Trust Company, and indorsed to plaintiff by J. W. Cabaniss, cashier. �The defendant filed a plea in the form and style of a "plea to the jurisdiction," alleging that the note sued on was not the property of the plaintiff, but the title to the note was in the Macon Bank & Trust Company, a corporation having its legal domicile in the western division of the southern district of Georgia, and that the transfer thereof by the Macon Bank & Trust Company, the payee, to the plaintiff, a citizen of New York, was purely eolorable, and for the mere purpose of enabling the plaintiff to bring suit in the United States court. No other plea was filed. �Plaintiff demurred to the plea on the ground that by section 2789 of the Code of Georgia, and decisions of the supreme court of Georgia thereon, the defendant could not inquire into the title of a hona Jide holder of the note except to let in some defence, and that, inasmueh as no other defence was set up in this case, the defendant could not make an issue on the plaintiff's title to the note. �*Reported by "W. B. Hill, Esq., of the Macon bar. ��� �
