30 FEDERAL REPORTER. �of his principal, to a honafide holder without notice, the prin- cipal cannot reclaim them. The reason is that the principal, in ail such cases, holds ont the agent as having an unlimited authority to dispose of and sell such instruments as he may please." Story on Agency, § 228. �The common-law ruie that the purchaser of a chattel ac- quires no better title than his vendor passed, has no appli- cation to negotiable paper. "The possession of such paper carries the title with it to the holder. ' The possession and title are one and inseparable.' The party who takes it beforo due for a valuable consideration, without knowledge of any defect of title, and in good faith, holds it by a title good against ail the world. Suspicion of defeot of title, or the knowledge of circumstances which would excite such suspicion in the mind of a prudent man, or gross negligence on the part of the taker at the time of the transfer, will not defeafc his title. That resuit can be prodiiced only by bad faith on his part. The burden of proof lies on the person who assails the right claimed by the party in possession." Murray v. Lard- ner, 2 Wall. 110; Hotchkiss v. National Bank, 21 Wall. 354. Tested by these settled rules the plaintiff's case fails. �Injunction dissolved and bill dismissed. ���State of Indiana ex rel. Eice v. Baldwin and others. �(OircuU Oourt, D. Indiana. February 24, 1881.) �1. Attachment — Undbr-Filing Greditor— Relbase of Attachbd �PhOPBKTY— LlABIIilTT OF SHERrFP— StATUTBS OF INDIANA. �In the State of Indiana an under-flling crediter in an attachment proceeding, not dismissed of record, has a right of action against the sherifl and his sureties for the prior reiease of the attached property, without notice, under an agreement between the original parties to the attachment suit. — [Ed. �Civil Action. �GrEESHAM, D. J. The complaint avers that on the twenty- second day of September, 1876, Jason Wilson and Adam ��� �
