GOOD FAITH. An honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious ad vantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of law, together with, an ab sence of all information or belief of facts which would render the transaction uncon scientious. Wood v. Conrad, 2 S. D. 334, 50 N. W. 95. See Winters v. Haines, 84 Ill. 588; Rawson v. Fox, 65 Ill. 200; Thornton v. Bledsoe, 46 Ala. 73; Bronner v. Loomis, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 442.
That honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge, of circumstances which ought to put him on inquiry, which protects a purchaser, holder, or creditor from being implicated in an effort by one with whom he is dealing to defraud some party in interest. Canal Bank v. Hudson, 111 U. S. 80, 4 Sup. et 303, 28 L. Ed. 354.
Good faith, in a statute regulating chattel mortgages, and declaring unrecorded mort gages to be invalid as against purchasers and mortgagees in good faith, means such as part ed with something of value, or otherwise altered their position irretrievably, on the strength of the apparent ownership, and without notice. Good faith in this connection means actual reliance upon the ownership of the vendor or mortgagor, because without no tice of the incumbrance ; National Bank of the Metropolis v. Sprague, 21 N. J. Eq. 536.
Good faith is presumed in favor of the holder of negotiable paper ; Dresser v. Con struction Co., 93 U. S. 94, 23 L. Ed. 815 ; Col lins v. Gilbert, 94 U. S. 754, 24 L. Ed. 170 ; Marfield v. Douglass, 3 N. Y. Super. Ct. 360; it is a presumption of law ; Jones v. Simp son, 116 U. S. 609, 6 Sup. Ct. 538, 29 L. Ed. 742 ; and outweighs a presumption of pay ment ; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Thomp son, 107 Ind. 442, 8 N. E. 18, 9 N. E. 357, 57 Am. Rep. 120; and such holder takes the paper free from any infirmity in its origin except such as make it void for illegality of consideration or want of capacity in the mak er; Bowditch v. Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 296, 4
N. E. 798, 55 Am. Rep. 474; Cromwell v.
County of Sac, 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681. While the presumption of law is sufficient in the absence of evidence, if the good faith of a party is put in issue by his adversary, he has a right to give affirmative evidence of it ; Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, 24 L. Ed. 889 ; al, where his ownership of negotia ble paper is put in issue, he may prove he became the owner in good faith ; Rails Coun ty v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 728, 26 L. Ed. 957. A person to whom the want of good faith is imputed in a statement shown to have been made by him may be asked if he believed this statement to be correct ; Rawls v. Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 282, 84 Am. Dec. 280. After proof of circumstances relied on as showing want of good faith by putting a person on inquiry, he may explain them by showing the reasons why he did not pursue the in quiry ; Seybel v. Bank,- 54 N. Y. 288, 13 Am. Rep. 583 ; and after stating the explanation received upon inquiry he may testify that he was satisfied with it ; Jennings v. Conboy, 73 N. Y. 236. Where the knowledge of the third person is in issue proof of general rep utation is sometimes competent as tending to show reasonable ground of belief or sus picion ; Barrett v. Western, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 205. Good faith is not disproved by a for gotten conversation; Kenyon v. See, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 214.
One who has purchased for value and with out notice, or his transferee, is termed a hold er in good faith ; McClure v. Oxford Tp., 94 U. S. 432, 24 L. Ed. 129.
A holder of a negotiable instrument in due course must have taken it in good faith. Neg. Instr. Act, § 52.