¶1 There is no error in the ruling. The evidence of the letter offered by the plaintiffs and objected to by the defendant, was totally immaterial, for as the court held, the law presumed every fact, for the proof of which, the letter was offered in evidence.
¶2 The note was a negotiable paper, and there is a prima facie presumption of law in favor of every holder of a negotiable paper, to the extent, that he is the oiuner of it, that he took it for value and before dishonor, and in the regular course of business. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 255, and the references to cases cited in notes S. T. and U. And in. Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, § 728, the same doctriné-is enunciated in the following language: “If the endorsement of a bill or note be undated, it .will be presumed, when, the paper is in the hands of a third party, to have been dated at the time of the execution, or at least before maturity and dishonor. It is difficult to see how a more definite presumption, than that the endorsement before maturity can be sustained, and this seems all that is necessary to the protection of commercial paper. As was said in Ranger v. Carey, 1 Mete., 369, a negotiable note being offered in evidence duly indorsed, the legal presumption is that such indorsement was made at the date of the note, or at least antece-dently to its becoming due, and if the defendant would avail himself of any defence that would be open to him only in case the note were negotiated after it was dishonored, it is incumbent on him to show that the indorsement was in fact made after the note was over due.”
¶3 The note having been indorsed before its maturity, the defence of set-off relied upon by the defendant cannot avail him.
¶4*36 There is no error. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.
¶5 No error. Affirmed.