"There being evidence of fraud in the procurement of the note, under the statute the burden was upon the plaintiff, and not upon the defendant, to prove that he acquired title to the note in due course, which, as we have seen, includes proof that it was taken in good faith, and that at the time the purchaser had no knowledge of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in Vennum's title." This construction has been uniformly followed by this court in the following cases: Voris v. Birdsall, 62 Okla. 286, 162 P. 951; Besse v. Morgan, 84 Okla. 203, 202 P. 1012; Union State Bank v. Mayor, 88 Okla. 230, 212 P. 987; Jenkins v. Helms, 89 Okla. 77, 213 P. 322; Messman v. Wilt, 91 Okla. 240, 217 P. 412; Voss v. Smith, 98 Okla. 90, 224 P. 328; Glasco v. Wall, 99 Okla. 253, 226 P. 572; Hamil v. Joyner, 103 Okla. 216, 229 P. 768; Sutherland v. First National Bank, 119 Okla. 278, 249 P. 715; Board of Education v. American Natl. Co., 135 Okla. 253, 275 P. 285. Claimant contends that under the cases of Loomis v. Cole, 119 Okla. 203, 249 P. 327, and Stevens v. Pierce, 79 Okla. 290, 193 P. 417, 18 A. L. R. 7, the burden of showing bad faith on the part of the holder in acquiring the note is upon the maker and not upon the holder.

In this class of cases, where there is nothing on the face of a note to cast suspicion upon its character, the rule is well settled that it can only be impeached, in the hands of a holder for value before maturity, by evidence that he took it under circumstances which rendered him guilty of bad faith, and that such evidence is always admissible. Goodrich v. McDonald, 77 Mich. 486; McPherrin v. Tittle, 36 Okla. 510, 129 P. 721, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 396; Lambre v. Smith, 53 Okla. 606, 175 P. 909, 18 A. L. R. 1; Glasco v. Wall, 99 Okla. 253, 226 P. 572; Commercial National Bank v. Ahrens, 117 Okla. 65, 245 P. 557. Clearly under these authorities the evidence complained of was admissible for the purpose it was intended to serve. Hereunder plaintiff further complains of certain evidence introduced by defendants which tended to show that they had for some time sought to have the original transaction closed.

Section 7722, Id., provides the conditions under which one is a holder in due course, among which is that he take the note in good faith and for value and that at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect of title of the person negotiating it. In numerous cases, including Glasco v. Wall et al., 99 Okla. 253, 226 P. 572, it is held: "While suspicion of defect of title, or the knowledge of circumstances which would excite such suspicion in the mind of a prudent man, or of circumstances sufficient to put him upon inquiry, will not defeat the title of a holder, and that result can be produced only by bad faith of the holder, yet the jury, or the court in the absence of the jury, may find bad faith therefrom."