Fictitious Payee

When a contract, such as negotiable paper, is drawn in favor of a fictitious person, and has been indorsed in such name, it is deemed payable to bearer as against all parties who are privy to the transaction, and a holder in good faith may recover on it against them. 2 H. Bl. 178, 288; 3 Term R. 174, 182, 481; 1 Camp. 130; 19 Ves. 311. And see 10 Barn. & C. 468; 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 38; 2 Deur (N. Y.) 121.

When a contract, such as negotiable paper, is drawn in favor of a fictitious person, and has been indorsed in such name, it is deemed payable to bearer' as against all parties who are privy to the transaction; and a holder in good faith may recover on it against them; Pars. Bills & N. 691, n.; 2 H. Bla. 178, 288; 19 Ves. 811; Tittle V. Thomas, 30 Miss. 122, 64 Am. Dec. 164; Hunter v. Blodget, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 480. The maker of such a note, by negotiating it, transfers title to it without indorsement, and it is presumed that the note came into the possession of the holder with the names of all the indorsers on it, and prima facie he is treated as a holder for value; Piets v. Johnson, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 112; provided that the acceptor or indorser be ignorant of the fact that the payee is fictitious; Forbes v. Espy, 21 Ohio St 483; 1 Camp. 130; and to entitle the holder of such a note to a recovery it must appear affirmatively that he was ignorant of the fact that the payee was a fictitious person; Maniort v. Roberts, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. T.) 83. As between the original parties who put it into circulation with a knowledge of the fiction, it might be held void as an inoperative instrument, but if money from the holder actually gets into the hands of the acceptor it may be. recovered back as money had and received; 1 Camp. 130. See also Sto. Prom. Notes 39. In the hands of a bona fide holder the note or bill is good against the maker; Irving National Bank v. Alley, 79 N. Y. 636; Lane v. Krekle, 22 la. 404; Farnsworth V. Drake, 11 Ind. 103; Blodgett v. Jackson, 40 N. H. 21. A bona fide holder for a valuable consideration of a bill drawn payable to a fictitious person and Indorsed in that name by the drawer may recover the amount of it in an action against the acceptor for money paid or money had and received, upon the idea that there was an appropriation of so much money to be paid to the person who should become the holder of the bill; 3 Term 174; and the mere fact of the acceptance of such a bill is evidence that the value has been received for it; id. 182; in this case three Judges thought that the bill was to be considered as payable to bearer, and in the leading case of Minet V. Gibson that view was taken and it was held that a recovery from the acceptor may be had upon a count upon a bill payable to bearer, where such acceptor is aware that the payee is a fictitious person; 8 Term 481. and Heath, J., with whom Lord Thurlow concurred; 1 H. Bla. 669; s. c. 6 Bro. P. O. 236. The case has been termed “anomalous” by a text writer who quotes the dissenting opinion of Eyre, C. B„ as one “whose reasoning, it is conceived, has never been refuted 2 Ames, Bills & Notes 864. But the same writer admits that “the doctrine of the case has been generally adopted.” In an action on such a bill, to show that the acceptor Is aware that the payee is a fictitious person, evidence is admissible to show the circumstances under which he had receiver! other bills payable to fictitious persons; 2 H. Bla. 187, 288. See also 18 C. B. N. S. 694; L. R. 1 C. P. 463. When a note is made payable to the name of some person not having any Interest, and not intended to become a party to the transaction, whether a person of such a name is or is not known to exist, the payee may be deemed fictitious; Foster v. Shattuck, 2 N. H. 446; [1891] A. a 107; [1908] 1 K. B. 13; Jordan Marsh Co. v. Bank, 201 Mass. 397, 87 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 250; Phillips V. Bank, 140 N. Y. 656, 36 N. E. 982, 23 L. R A. 584, 37 Am. St. Rep. 696; Snyder v. Bank, 221 Pa. 599, 70 Atl. 876, 128 Am. St. Rep. 780. If the maker did not know that the payee was a fictitious or non-existent person, and did not intend to make the paper payable to such person, the instrument cannot be treated as payable to bearer, for the intention of the maker or drawer is the test; Shipman V. Bank, 126 N. Y. 318, 27 N. E. 371, 12 L. R. A. 791, 22 Am. St. Rep. 821; Armstrong V. Bank, 46 Ohio St 512, 22 N. E. 866, 6 L. R. A. 625, i6 Am. St Rep. 655; Jordan Marsh Co. V. Bank, 201 Mass. 397, 87 N. E. 740, 22