¶1after stating the facts: The note sued upon was negotiable, and the title to it passed to the holder thereof by endorsement. The execution of it, and the endorsement thereof, were not questioned. The presumption was that it and the endorsement were founded upon a ■valuable consideration. The possession, and production of it in evidence on the trial, implied that the plaintiff acquired it in the course of business, in good faith, and for full Value, before it became due, and without notice of any fact impeaching its validity in his hands. The plaintiff certainly produced evidence to prove his case prima facie. The burden *411was, then, on the defendant. Meadows v. Cozart, 76 N. C., 450, and the authorities there cited.
¶2We cannot hesitate to hold that the defendant produced no evidence, nor was there evidence, to prove that the plaintiff was not the owner of the note, and we cannot see why the Court did not give the instruction as requested by the plaintiff. He was clearly entitled to it. The mere fact that the payee of the note may have perpetrated gross fraud upon the defendant in obtaining the note from him cannot affect the course of justice.
¶3The plaintiff is entitled to a new trial, and we so adjudge.
¶4Error.