26 ���FEDERAL KBPOBTER. ���the trial upon the points then raised against the negotiability of the note sued on. I think it entirely clear of ail doubt that an administrator may negotiate a note made payable ta him, and that the recital of the consideration in tli^ face of the note does not at ail affect its negotiable character. If the note in question had said that it was subject to the agreement for the purchase of the land, or used other words indicating that it was to be burdened with the conditions of that agree- ment, the case would he different. Cushing y. Field, (Sup. Ct. Me.) 13 Chi. Leg. News, 11. The note is hereinafter copied, and I need only refer to its language to show that it is a simple recital of the consideration. Barchell v. Slocock, 2 Ld. Eaym. 1545; Baïley v. Bawley, 1 Swan, 295; Baxter Y.Stew- art, 4 Sneed, 213. �Even in Tennessee, then, where whatever is suffioient to put a person upon inquiry amounts to notice, the mere recital that the consideration was for land does not have this effect. Ryland v. Brswn, 2 Head, 270 ; Merritt v. Duncan, 7 Heisk. 156. But in the courts of the United States, where the rulo is that there must he actual notice, or bad faith, to charge the holder for value, there can be no question that the recitals of this note are not suffioient to charge the plaintiff with any equities between the defendants and the payee. Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. 343 ; Merritt v. Duncan, supra; Murray v. Lardner, 2 "Wall. 110. �This brings us to the question of fact upon the proof as to notice. It is not pretended that there was anything further to charge plaintiff with notice than that he knew the land lay in Arkansas, and that Gregg was an administrator in Arkan- sas. It is said by a witness that the officer of the bank "looked at some papers" at the moment of taking the note befor.e he agreed to take it. What the papers were, whether one thing or another, is not proved, nor is there anything from which to infer that there was in that circumatance a probable knowledge of any fact connected with this note. It may havo been a report of some commercial agency showing the standing of defendants, for anything that appeared in proof, or it mtiy have been some other paper totally disconnected with this transaction. AU knowledge of the alleged faots are denied ����
