agreement which happened to be the effect of the clause dealt with in the Arthur Case. The real decision Is that collateral obligations In the mortgage when of the kind that equity would Imply though the mortgage said nothing agreements to repay which the law would make if the mortgage were silent do not affect the negotiability of the note because the note may be sued on Independently In which case the agreement In the mortgage could not stay In pleading and that therefore the mortgage clause now considered does not affect the negotiability of the note secured by the mortgage.We hold the note is negotiable so it becomes important whether defendants had notice of the infirmities of that Instrument.III. Many of the cases cited merely establish the undoubted proposition thatwhatever the agent knows the principal knows. Others go to what will convey notice to the agent The citations establish it to be the weight of authority that knowledge possessed by the agent may bind the principal though it was Christian Louboutin Outlet acquired before the agency commenced if the agent remembers when he acts for the principal. Others deal with what will or Coach Outlet Store Online will not entitle the plaintiff indorsee to a directed verdict on the ground that good faith is conclusively shown. Still others find that certain evidence shows or fails to show good faith.We have found that the note and mortgage are without consideration and are tainted with fraud Nike Air Max in their inception. The consequences are settled by Farmers Bank v. Shaffer. Appellant cites the opinion in that case which was superseded on rehearing. The one now ruling is on pageofN. W. It holds that in a case like this the purchaser has the burden of making affirmative showing of acquisition in good faith and is not aided because the evidence of bad faith adduced by his opponent Christian Louboutin Outlet is weak. The vital question is Coach Outlet Store Online whether we trying the case de novo can find that defendants have shown by a preponderance that they bought in good faith in due course of business for valuable consideration and without notice of the fraud practiced by Hamilton upon plaintiff. While as said It does not help the defendants that the plaintiff has made out a weak case we must in considering whether defendant has the preponderance take all the evidence of both parties. This makes it proper In aid of affirmative testimony of good faith and of denials of bad faith to note any Inherent Nike Shoes Australia unreasonableness of or contradictions in the testimony for the plaintiff. It is agreed that during all times material here Price was Nike Air Max 90 president and Konigmacher cashier of defendant bank. The mortgage was acknowledged uefore Price as notary. He said he gave the matter no consideration and did not Nike Australia know what was in the mortgage; that his acting as notary was purely perfunctory and he would not have been able to remember now without the aid of the instrument itself that he ever made the acknowledgment. He never had any talk with Hamilton at any time as to how Hamilton got the note and mortgage.Plaintiff herself testifies that when she came into the bank Hamilton said he knew her time was very limited that all they would ask her to do was to sign the paper there present and that she would have to sign it before her money could come through defendant bank. Price denies all this. He says that all that occurred was in substance that plaintiff asked whether he would take her acknowledgment that Coach Outlet Store Online he said yes