secured thereby is in plaintiff; that at the time of the execution it was well known to Price that the mortgage and the indebtedness secured by it was in fact the property of plaintiff and that Price then well knew that Hamilton owned neither the mortgage nor the indebtedness secured by it but that both were thte property of plaintiff. Price says that when he talked with her about why she delivered the mortgage to Hamilton without getting money and she explained it she said nothing about not having signed a note. This failure to speak is not denied.IV. As to relations between Price and Hamilton Price testifies he knew Hamilton claimed to be engaged in making loans and real estate bonds and had an office. There were no social relations they were not friendly and he had done no business with him personally. While Hamilton had a small account in the bank Price is not the one who got him to be a customer and knew nothing of him except In a general way as a customer. When later Hamilton obtained a loan of SO of the bank on the Coach Outlet Store Online notes and mortgage as collateral security Price had no personal knowledge of how it happened plaintiff gave Hamilton these papers; had no talk with Hamilton at any time as to how he got them did not personally close the loan deal; never got a penny of the money loaned directly or indirectly and never talked with Hamilton directly or Indirectly about receiving anything personally on account of It. When the loan was applied for the cashier and Price according Nike Air Max 90 to usual custom talked about the collateral offered and told Hamilton to come back after they were advised concerning it Thereafter Price made an Investigation of the value of the property and found as plaintiff herself claims that it was worth some or more than the loan applied for and Price adds that it was this security that was relied on. He testifies that the loan and the taking of the security was something in the usual and ordinary course of business during business hours in the daytime; and It appears it is not the usual course of business to call up makers of paper offered by another as collateral to see whether the bank might loan upon it; that they acted because they considered the security as good collateral. The only circumstances claimed to cast any suspicion on the transaction are that at the time the loan was made the proceeds were used to take up a note ofand accrued interest which Hamilton owed the bank. It was given approximately three months prior to JanuaryOn January th the note was a trifle past due and may have been a renewal note though it Is the best Coach Outlet Store Online recollection of Price that it was Nike Air Max not. He says he was not getting sick of this note and though It was past due he was not worried much about It; they had a Mr. Soloman and Hamiltons wife as surety and Konigmacher says they considered It good. Next that while the mortgage was recorded on Januarythe assignment was not recorded until June The explanation is the lender thought it was simply a temporary loan and that the assignment would be merely passed back when the paper was taken Nike Australia up. Finally that a few weeks after Coach Outlet Store Online the transaction was had Price called where plaintiff was working to assure himself of her identity and that she was Christian Louboutin Outlet the person who signed and acknowledged the mortgage to which she replied that she was.V. We have already dealt fully with the claim that somebody deceived plaintiff into thinking she was not signing a mortgage. Whatever controversy there may be about this it is certain she cannot urge in a court of equity and as against these defendants whatever concealment was practiced if for no other reason than the one Christian Louboutin Outlet given in Van Slyke v. RooksMichN. W in which It is held that Nike Shoes Australia where in an action on a note